Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,— Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

East Grinstead Gas and Water Bill. Bill committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Edģar Granville: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that public assistance officers are finding it impossible to fulfil the statutory obligation of accommodating aged and sick people in county institutions owing to a continued shortage of staff in Suffolk as well as other counties; whether he has considered an appeal from the County Councils Association for the direction of staff to these overcrowded institutions; and what action he has taken in order to relieve the suffering of these old people.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am aware that public assistance institutions are experiencing difficulty in some areas owing to shortage of nursing staff. I am doing everything possible to provide the necessary staff for these institutions, and, in the case of the seven public assistance institutions in Suffolk,

vacancies for one matron, three sisters and 14 assistant nurses have been filled recently. I shall continue to do my best to provide staff, wherever needed, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the acute shortage of nursing staff for all purposes.

Mr. Granville: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that many of these old people are bedridden and, in some cases, mentally incapable of looking after themselves, and that, in many cases, the right hon. Gentleman has called up their relatives, and that it is very serious indeed? Is he aware that there are beds available, if the Minister will enable some of these institutions and hospitals to get staff to look after these people?

Mr. Bevin: As I have pointed out over and over again in the House, this question of nurses is an acute problem. I cannot make nurses in a day, but I am doing my level best, by training and everything that I can do, to fill up the gap.

Mr. Charles White: asked the Minister of Health what is the average weekly cost per inmate in the public assistance institutions of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The latest period for which complete figures are available is the year ended 31st March, 1938, and they relate separately to the 31 institutions in the four counties. I will, with permission, circulate these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Average weekly cost per inmate at Public Assistance Institutions of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire.

Year ended 31st March, 1938


Institution


Cost per inmate per week


Derbyshire


s.
d.


Ashbourne
…
…
26
11.7


Bakewell
…
…
23
10.1


Belper
…
…
17
0.9


Chapel-en-le-Frith
…
…
24
5.1


Chesterfield
…
…
25
3.6


Glossop
…
…
28
5.7


Shardlow
…
…
23
1.2


Nottinghamshire


Basford
…
…
22
8.1


Bingham
…
…
1.6
8.3


East Retford
…
…
25
11.8


Mansfield
…
…
29
1.8


Newark
…
…
24
10.7


Southwell
…
…
29
11.3


Worksop
…
…
23
0.5






Institution



Cost per inmate per week


Staffordshire



s.
d.


Cannock
…
…
…
22
11.6


Cheadle
…
…
…
22
0.4


Leek
…
…
…
23
1.4


Lichfield
…
…
…
22
7.4


Sedgley
…
…
…
23
2.2


Stafford
…
…
…
19
10.3


Stone
…
…
…
21
1.7


Tamworth
…
…
…
21
3.2


Uttoxeter
…
…
…
28
11.1


Wordsley
…
…
…
39
3.8


Cheshire







Arclid
…
…
…
26
1.6


Bucklow
…
…
…
19
11.3


Dutton
…
…
…
27
9.5


Macclesfield
…
…
…
29
9.2


Nantwich
…
…
…
23
6.1


Northwich
…
…
…
21
9.2


Tarvin
…
…
…
37
3.8

Note.—The foregoing figures show the net cost of maintenance after an adjustment where necessary in respect of casuals. They include loan charges, lout not capital expenditure defrayed from revenue or superannuation expenditure or recoveries in respect of the maintenance of inmates.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Ex-Service Personnel (Employment)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended that during the period of leave following release from the Armed Forces, men and women will be free to seek employment through the normal channels of advertisement, personal introduction and employment agencies.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. It is my intention that men and women released in Class A from the Armed Forces following the defeat of Germany should be free to seek and to obtain employment in any way they desire during the period after their release while they are on leave with full pay.

War-time Controls (Continuance)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the introduction of a more acceptable method of ensuring that during the interim period between the defeat of Germany and Japan released man-power is absorbed where, in the national interests, it is most required, by means of progressive decontrol and release of raw materials rather than by forced direction of labour by employment exchanges.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by

the Prime Minister on 16th November, 1944, in which it was made clear that during the interim period many war-time controls over raw materials, industrial capacity and so forth would continue to be necessary, and that all controls, including those over labour, were a part of an organised scheme. As regards compulsory direction of labour in particular, it has been made clear in the White Paper on the Reallocation of Man-Power, Cmd. 6568, that, while it is essential that the Government should possess the power of direction, it is intended to dispense with its use to a great extent.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to consider that it will not be possible to do to soldiers what has been done to "Bevin boys" who do not carry out his directions? They cannot be sent to gaol, because the country would not stand for it.

Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that you cannot let go the war machine, until you have defeated your final enemy, which is Japan.

Directed Women (Burnley)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that at Burnley women over 35 years of age are being directed to close their own businesses and enter munition factories, while at the same time employers and trade unions are being advised that redundancy is imminent in munition factories in the town; and what steps he is taking to prevent such occurrences.

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of women over 35 years of age being directed to close their own businesses and enter factories in Burnley, but I am making inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Burke: If I send the Minister particulars about a case, will he not merely not make inquiries but allow the women to go back to their businesses? The facts are there.

Mr. Bevin: I must inquire into them, and if my hon. Friend had sent me the particulars I could have dealt with the case during the time I have been going unto the Question.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (CORRESPONDENCE DELAYS)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to expedite replies sent by himself and the Parliamentary Secretary to Members of Parliament regarding the cases of constituents, as at present there is frequently a delay of some weeks in dealing with comparatively simple cases and such delay often causes hardship to the constituents concerned.

Mr. Bevin: These apparently simple cases nearly always involve local enquiry to establish the facts and the careful review of action taken. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the prompt handling of correspondence is a matter to which I give constant attention.

Mr. Touche: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in one case, which is causing great anxiety to a soldier at the front, and concerns the whole future of his business, it took six weeks to get a reply?

Mr. Bevin: I know it took a long time in that case, but, if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had sent the first answer which was submitted by the Department, my hon. Friend would have been totally dissatisfied with that answer. It was sent back for reconsideration, and, I think, the right answer was given finally, to the satisfaction of everybody.

Mr. Keelinģ: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 24 hours are frequently lost because a letter which has been signed by the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary one afternoon, is not despatched until the following morning, or even afternoon?

SHOP STEWARDS' COMMITTEES

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent shop stewards' committees in industrial undertakings are recognised by his Ministry; and what is their relation to the official trades union movement.

Mr. Bevin: The only recognition given by the Ministry is to the executive bodies of the trade unions. Shop stewards' committees may be a part of the constitution of the unions.

Sir T. Moore: May I ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that answer? Did he

say that shop stewards' committees were an integral part of the trade union?

Mr. Bevin: In many cases.

Sir T. Moore: But is the Minister satisfied that these shop stewards' committees are devoted to the interests of the country, as well as to the interests of the workers?

Mr. Bevin: I think so.

L.P.T.B. LOADING STAFF (TRADE UNION)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the loading staff employed by the L.P.T.B. are, with two exceptions, members of the National Passenger Workers' Union, which has applied to him to establish appropriate machinery for discussing these workers' claims, or for their reference to the National Arbitration Board; that both applications have been refused; that the Union has been told that they have the alternative of accepting these decisions or of calling a strike; and whether he will take steps to see that these workmen are given freedom to belong to the union of their choice and their legal right to access to the National Arbitration Tribunal in default of conciliation machinery.

Mr. Bevin: I am advised that the loading reporter grade is covered by the Board's general agreements and that there is ample machinery for determining any question arising. Accordingly, acting under the provisions of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order, I have requested that the claim should be considered by that machinery and that I should be informed of the result.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the agreement to which he refers was never submitted to these men at all; that they are not members of the union and that they have a specific right to join what union they please and to have the facilities for arbitration which this House has laid down?

Mr. Bevin: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the House of Commons is not a good place in which to settle internecine war between two unions.

Mr. Brown: Is not the House of Commons the proper place—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

DEMOBILISATION (POLICE WAR RESERVE SERVICE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of considerable discontent among ex-members of the Police War Reserve respecting demobilisation from the military forces in which they are now; and whether he will confer with the Service Ministers, with a view to securing the removal of the injustice arising from the disadvantage suffered through service in the Police War Reserve not being accepted as part of the period of service determining demobilisation.

Mr. Bevin: The claim that service in the Police War Reserve before enlistment in the Armed Forces should count for priority of release from the Forces has been given most careful consideration. It would, however, be impossible to allow service in the Police War Reserve to count without making a similar concession to the other Civil Defence Services, and, in all probability, to other forms of war service. Moreover, there is a real distinction between service in the Forces and service in the Police War Reserve, and any concession could only be made at the expense of men who have, in fact, served longer in the Armed Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

San Francisco Conference (Representation)

Sir Georģe Schuster: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the splendid contribution to the war effort made by the Indian States, it is proposed to include representatives of such States among the Indian delegation to the San Francisco Conference.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Yes. The Government of India have announced that India will be represented by Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar and Sir Firoz Khan Ncon, representing British India, and Sir V. T. Krishnamachari, representing the States.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be a very desirable thing if India as a whole were represented at San Francisco, as an independent State?

Mr. Edģar Granville: Does the Minister's reply mean that the Indian representatives will be invited to attend the

preliminary Commonwealth Conference which is to be held in London?

Mr. Amery: Yes, India will certainly be represented at that Conference.

Indian Divisions (American General's Tribute)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the recent tribute paid by General Mark Clark to the Indian forces under his command; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this tribute shall receive full publicity.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I have noted with great pleasure this tribute, which I am circulating with the 'OFFICIAL REPORT, from the distinguished American Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies in Italy to the Indian Divisions serving under his command. The tribute was published here, and will have been received with gratification in India.

Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether publication has been given to this tribute, and particularly if there has been any publicity in the U.S.A.?

Mr. Amery: I am sorry to say that General Mark Clark's statement seems to have passed unnoticed in the American Press.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware of the tribute paid by the Scottish troops to these Indians, by calling them the "MacGurkhas"?

Following is the statement:

Remarks of Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, Commanding, 15th Army Group, To Visiting Journalists of India, At A Location Near The 15th Army Group Front in Italy, 27 February, 1945.

With the 15th Army Group in Italy, February 27.

I have had the distinction of having under my command a trio of great Indian divisions, the 4th, 8th and 10th, whose fighting record in Italy is a splendid one.

The achievements in combat of these Indian soldiers are noteworthy. They have carried on successfully in the grim and bloody fighting against a tenacious enemy who has been aided by terrain particularly


favourable for defence. No obstacle has succeeded in delaying these Indian troops long or in lowering their high morale of fighting spirit.

They are well led, these three divisions. Each of the division commanders, at one time, commanded a battalion in an Indian infantry regiment in combat. These divisional commanders came up the hard way. They are, respectively, for the 4th, 8th and 10th Indian Divisions:

Major General A. W. W. Holworthy, M.C.,
Major General Dudley Russell, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C.,
Major General Denys W. Reid, C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C.

Thousands of the Indian troops are now spending their second winter in Italy. Some of the Indian troops who came from service in the Middle East to Italy have been in action for nearly four years.

Your "Jawan" and our "Yank" and "Tommy Atkins" and "Jock" and the other soldiers of this international 15th Army Group have established firm bonds of friendship and respect born in common action against a tough enemy. The bravery of Indian troops is attested by battle honors and decorations awarded.

The 4th, 8th and 10th Indian Divisions will ever be associated with fighting at Cassino, the capture of Rome, the Arno Valley, the liberation of Florence, and the breaking of the Gothic defensive line. Recently in the Serchio River Valley, on the Fifth Army front, a German counterattack was stopped and thrown back by troops that included the bulk of the 8th Indian Division. I salute the brave soldiers of these three great Indian divisions.

Conģress Leaders (Detention)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to detain the Congress leaders until Japan is defeated, or indefinitely so long as they do not satisfy the requirements of the Government.

Mr. Amery: It is not intended to detain the Congress leaders indefinitely. The Government of India will consider their release when they are satisfied that it will not prejudice the maintenance of law and order and the safety of India as a war base.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that the time has now arrived when this could not, in any sense, adversely affect the military situation?

Mr. Amery: I understand that it is the opinion of the Government of India, which must be decisive in this matter, that the time has not yet arrived for general release. Individuals have been released progressively over a long period.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that the process will go on so that, in time, Congress leaders dike Gandhi and others will be released?

Mr. Amery: We can consider that when the time arrives.

BURMA (EVACUEES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Burma to what extent allowances are still being paid to evacuees from Burma; whether arrangements have been made to repatriate evacuees to Burma as soon as military conditions permit and to provide financial assistance for the purpose; and what are the provisions to be made for compensation to Burmese who have lost their homes and livelihood and for their welfare.

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): Provision for relief is being continued for evacuees from Burma, who are still in need of assistance, under schemes administered by the Government of Burma and, in respect of Indian evacuees, by the Government of India. Arrangements are under consideration for the repatriation of evacuees including provision for their welfare and for financial assistance where necessary. It will be appreciated that claims for compensation for war damage from all classes of the community can at present only be recorded and that decisions on these claims must wait until the civil government returns to Burma and the full measure of the problem can be ascertained.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation of the reply, can we take it that the poorer people will be guaranteed compensation in full?

Mr. Amery: Everything will be done to assist the poorer people to get back and to get employment but, as I say, the


question of actual compensation for loss incurred in the invasion must wait until the total measure of need is ascertained.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Black-out Reģulations

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is prepared to consider the complete abolition of the black-out regulations.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Though I share my hon. and gallant Friend's desire to cancel war-time restrictions so soon as they may no longer serve a definite public purpose, I fear the time has not yet come when the black-out should be completely abolished.

Captain Gammams: Is it not a fact that there is no black-out in Paris at all?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, Sir.

Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any indication as to whether he still believes in this policy of strength through black-out?

Mr. Morrison: I always believe in the policy that I am pursuing.

Mr. Bowles: But for how long?

Street Lightinģ

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the differences in street lighting as between town and town and as between various sections of the same city and if, to avoid accidents, he will endeavour to secure a minimum national standard of lighting for all main routes.

Mr. H. Morrison: Under emergency legislation it has been necessary to limit the amount of street lighting allowed in war-time, but I have no power to require any minimum standard of street lighting.

STATIONARY VEHICLES (THEFTS)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of stationary commercial motor vehicles stolen in the year 1944, with the subsequent theft of rationed food and

commodities contained therein and the value of the stolen goods.

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that this information is not available.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (POLLING HOURS)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that voters working at some distance from their homes and thus obliged to spend considerable time each day in travelling to and from work and agricultural workers working exceptionally long hours during the harvest, have, on occasion, had difficulty in reaching polling stations before their hour of closing; and if he will consider instituting a uniform hour of closing for polling stations throughout the country on the clay of the General Election, such hour to be the latest that can reasonably be fixed, say nine or ten o'clock p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Speaker's Conference recommended that polling hours should be uniform from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., but as under existing legislation a candidate or his agent may ask for an extension of the poll to such hours, the Government do not consider that any further action is necessary.

Mr. Driberģ: Could my right hon. Friend say whether a candidate can ask for an extension even beyond 9 o'clock, because in some districts it is really difficult for people to get there much before 9 o'clock, and then they find a queue waiting outside the door?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am afraid that is not possible under the existing law. The candidate, by simple request, can get from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. or such hours between, but one must consider also the long time for the official electoral organisation and the party organisation, and I should have thought that going beyond g p.m. is not very reasonable.

EIRE—NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER (ESPIONAGE)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to avoid all espionage, he will issue special orders to those guarding the border to prevent all enemy aliens and


sympathisers from crossing the border into Northern Ireland from Eire.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am satisfied that the Government of Northern Ireland are armed with adequate powers to enable them to take such steps as are necessary and practicable to safeguard the interests of national security.

Dr. Little: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, as the danger is greater to-day than ever before, owing to the presence of German prisoners of war in Northern Ireland and their frequent escapes, he will keep all enemy aliens in Eire on their own side of the border out of touch with these prisoners of war and thus prevent any connection between them and the German representatives in Dublin?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it possible to find out how many enemy aliens there are in Eire?

Mr. Morrison: I should think so. With regard to my hon. Friend's point, as far as I know, no great harm has resulted and, if we had enough troops on the border of Northern Ireland, which would mean a densely packed lot of troops right across the border, I am not sure how many troops would be left to fight the Germans in Europe.

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT VEHICLES (DISPOSAL)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the authority dealing with the disposal of N.F.S. motor vehicles now lying at the N.F.S. depot at Laycock, near Blackpool; and what procedure is to be followed by persons desiring to purchase these vehicles for immediate use.

Mr. H. Morrison: The vehicles in question are surplus Government vehicles which have been reported to the Ministry of Supply as available for disposal. Anyone wishing to acquire such vehicles for use on the road should first apply to the Regional Transport Commissioner, Ministry of War Transport, for a permit to acquire them.

Mr. Burke: If I send the hon. Member a bundle of papers from various Government Departments which have dealt with

these vehicles, including the Ministry of Supply, will he sort it out for me, and find out exactly what is the procedure?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my very best to effect the necessary steps of co-ordination.

HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL VACANCY (PARTY TRUCE)

Sir Austin Hudson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a vacancy on the Hackney Borough Council, caused by the death of a Conservative alderman, has been filled by the appointment of a Labour councillor; and as this is a breach of the agreement made between parties as a result of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, whereby the existing balance of parties was to be retained, whether he will take action to remedy the position thus created.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend, and, as he is aware, I have caused an official communication to be sent to the borough council reminding them of the party truce which was intended to preserve the balance of parties and suggesting that they should take such steps as are possible to repair this apparent breach of the spirit of that truce.

Mr. Gallacher: How is it that the Minister has sent such a letter and, when I raised a similar case in connection with a Scottish council, the Secretary of State for Scotland said he could not interfere in the matter?

Mr. Morrison: It would not be right for me to answer for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I have taken this step in cases which, politically, were the other way round, and although this was Hackney and a little bit difficult, I felt I must do my duty.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any kind of list of councils that have wrongly put in councillors in this way, and can he say who is winning in the fight?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know. On the whole, the general run of local authorities are carrying out the spirit of the


truce, with very few exceptions—some go one way and some the other. I think they ought all to play the game.

Mr. Cooks: Is not the party truce wearing rather thin?

TEACHERS' SALARIES (BU RNHAM AWARD)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Education if he has considered the Burnham award on teachers' salaries; and if he has decided to accept it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Ede): The scales of remuneration submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Burnham Committee are under consideration, but he is not yet in a position to announce his decision upon them.

Mr. Lipson: But can my right hon. Friend explain the reason for this delay, in view of the fact that the Minister announced to this House some time ago an arrangement he had made with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable local authorities to meet the expenditure; and is he further aware that local authorities have to prepare their budgets and they are in difficulty in not knowing how much they have to provide for teachers' salaries?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, my right hon. Friend made it clear in the course of his speech that the arrangement he announced was contingent upon his final acceptance of the scheme. With regard to the second part of the question, it has to be borne in mind that the local authorities themselves were responsible for a three months' delay in reaching their decision on the scales after the Burnham Committee had drafted them. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should repeat his Question next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Buildinģ Leases, Glamorģan

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the trustees of the Margam Estate, Glamorgan, through their agents, Mr. G. S. Roedemen and Messrs. John G. Wood and Company, are offering freehold reversions on building leases at 35 years' purchase price: and what steps he

proposes to stop exploitation of poor persons who must purchase at this high price because they have no alternative accommodation.

Mr. Willink: I have no jurisdiction in this matter, which had not previously been brought to my notice. The general question of the practicability of controlling operations of this kind would appear to come within the purview of the committee on the selling price of houses.

Mr. Williams: May I ask whether the Minister will be prepared to submit the evidence to that Committee?

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend will give the evidence to the Committee, I am sure they will be glad to consider it.

Bombed Sites (Notice)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the posting of a notice under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, on 1st December, 1944, on a site in Greenwich, cleared in consequence of war damage, comprising all even numbers in Hassenden Road above No. 32 and all odd numbers in Fursefield Road above No. 31; that owners of part of this land, whose offices were 13 miles away, did not receive notification of the matter until r3th December, 1944, so could not lodge representations; that most of these notices are being posted on war damaged sites; and whether he will instruct all authorities to serve notices on owners, having previously secured the names and addresses from the offices of the War Damage Commission.

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Health what instructions have been issued to secure that in every case in which a local authority is required to give notice to an owner of bombed property the power of so doing is not deemed to be sufficiently exercised by affixing such notice to some conspicuous object on the premises or by handing it to some person who may happen to be on the premises, until after the usual methods of notice by post to the last known place of business or residence have been employed.

Mr. Willink: The method of serving these notices is governed by the provisions of Section 6 of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act and it is for the local authority to decide how those provisions should be applied to an indivi-


dual case. I have no power to issue instructions in the sense indicated in the Question.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it not desirable that owners of property should be duly notified of the intentions of the local authorities? Further, would it not be desirable in this case, and in other cases, to ask the local authorities, so far as is practicable, to notify owners before taking these drastic measures?

Mr. Willink: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the obtaining of sites for these temporary houses in urban areas is a very difficult matter, in which speed is really of the essence of the bued after consideration by Parliament, in Section 6 of the Act, to which I referred, were inserted after discussion with the local authorities, and I cannot limit their discretion as to how they should use their statutory powers.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it not a fact that in this instance the owners of the property were only 13 miles away, so that there was no physical difficulty in making the necessary approach?

Mr. Willink: Discovering the owners of property has for long been one of the major difficulties in the acquisition of property, even in ordinary times. These three alternative procedures were approved by Parliament, and must continue to apply.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not the fact that the Government have no housing policy at all?

Kitchen and Bathroom Equipment

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health if he is requiring both emergency and permanent houses ranking for Government subsidy to be equipped with the complete installation of labour-saving kitchen equipment, etc., similar to that now to be seen in emergency houses on exhibition at the Tate Gallery site.

Mr. Willink: The temporary houses supplied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will have equipment, etc., similar to that shown in the demonstration houses near the Tate Gallery. Permanent houses built by local authorities will be equipped on the lines recommended in Housing Manual, 1944.

Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Government provide equipment, or whether local authorities have to purchase it themselves?

Mr. Willink: The great bulk of the equipment for temporary houses will be provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

Mr. Bossom: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the 30,000 postwar houses coining from the United States under Lend-lease contain modern kitchen and bathroom equipment; and if this will prevent British manufacturers of similar equipment from exporting it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I understand that the temporary houses we are to receive from the United States will contain certain fixed equipment made to United States specifications which it would be difficult to supply or uneconomic to fit into the houses in this country. Housing fittings are for the most part in very short supply, and the heavy demands of the United Kingdom housing programme must have priority over all other requirements.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Ts it possible for us to learn where these houses are going to?

Captain Waterhouse: Not from the Board of Trade.

Buildinģ Permits

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health whether, as many of the authorities from whom building permits have to be obtained embrace several Departments, each of whom may take a month or longer in which to give approvals, he can give a list of all Departments from which approvals must be obtained before the different types of buildings may be erected and occupied.

Mr. Willink: I have given my hon. Friend a complete list of the responsible authorities. I cannot undertake to subdivide the authorities into departments of administration which may differ in the various authorities.

Mr. Bossom: Would my right hon. and learned Friend try to speed up the matter? Although he has given the list of the authorities some of them have to


get approval from four or more different departments, and that takes four or five months. This is a very serious matter.

Mr. Willink: That is another question, but I hope my hon. Friend, on reflection, will agree that to ask me to decide what department in every local authority should deal with the matter is an impossible request.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister publish the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Willink: It has already been published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. and learned Friend speed up the matter a little more, because it is very slow? I am only trying to call attention to a serious condition.

Mr. Willink: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should find that there is great delay at the moment.

War Damaģe (Rural Areas)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Works what arrangements have been made with county councils and other rural authorities for essential repairs to damaged rural dwellings and buildings and for an allocation of temporary bungalows as they become available for use in rural areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbruģh): I have been asked to reply. By arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works assistance is given by his Department to local authorities in rural areas by providing supplementary labour and materials for repairs to damaged houses and essential farm buildings. Circulars 2450 and 2871, copies of which have been sent to my hon. and gallant Friend, set out the procedure. County councils are not normally concerned with the repairs. With regard to the second part of the Question, about 6,000 temporary houses have been allocated to 101 rural district councils in England and Wales, and about 2,500 temporary houses to 24 small boroughs and 13 counties in Scotland.

Colonel Lyons: Is there constant touch between the Department and the local authorities on this matter, in which they may require help urgently?

Miss Horsbruģh: Yes, certainly.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RETURNS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the letter from the Lexden and Winstree Rural District Council protesting at the labour involved in filling in the returns required by the Ministry of Health Circular 11/45, dated 5th February, 1945; and if he will cause inquiries to be made to see whether some reduction can be made in the number and complexity of the returns which his Ministry is now asking local authorities to make on 'different subjects.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The return relates to information which, on the one hand, the local authorities must have in order to carry out their functions and which, on the other, is required by the Central Departments in order to secure a fair allocation of labour to different areas for war damage repairs. Returns of this kind are kept under continuous review and are reduced to the minimum.

Mr. Driberģ: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Council, like many others, is handicapped acutely by shortage of staff, and has he made any further recent representations to the Service Departments about the release of qualified staff?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, I am, of course, aware of the shortage, and pressure is continuous to obtain the release of local authority officers in the Services, Government Departments and industry.

EVACUATION SCHEME (REQUISITIONED PREMISES, ABERGELE)

Sir Robert Younģ: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, under the Government Evacuation Scheme, certain premises in Abergele, with their contents, were taken over by the clerk of the local. Urban District Council, without any agreement having been reached with the owners of the premises with regard to their value and the value of hard and soft furnishings; who is the determining authority for settling the price to be paid in such disagreements; and whether there is arty appeal from the district valuer's decision.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Compensation in respect of requisitioned premises and chattels is payable in accordance with the provisions of the Compensation (Defence)


Act, 1939, and is not a matter of prior agreement with the owner. The Act provides that any dispute as to the amount of the compensation payable shall be referred, in default of agreement, to the General Claims Tribunal for determination.

Sir R. Younģ: Can the Minister say whether the proprietor of a bungalow such as this would be allowed to dispense with his goods and chattels before the bungalow was taken over; and will he also say how the owner could pay rates, taxes, fire insurance and ground rent out of the 6s. 7d. a week offered to him for his property?

Mr. Willink: I do not know whether the sum offered is fair and proper, but as regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary this was a case arising out of the very large evacuation in the latter part of last summer, when both chattels and property were requisitioned.

Sir R. Younģ: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the owner of "Greyome," Gaine Bach, Towyn, Abergele, has received a notice forbidding him to visit his property or to make any inspection thereof; and, seeing that the owner complains that his property and its contents have been seriously mishandled by the evacuees lodged therein, will he explain the reasons for this prohibition and state who is ultimately responsible for the replacement of damaged furnishings and the repair of the bungalow.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, but where possession of land is taken by a competent authority under Regulation 51 of the Defence (General) Regulations, the owner or any other person has to obtain the permission of that authority before he may enter upon the land. When the property is derequisitioned, the owner is entitled to make a claim under Section 2 (1 b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, in respect of any damage—other than fair wear and tear and war damage—which may have occurred during the period for which the land has been retained under requisition. Where chattels are requisitioned the owner is entitled to claim compensation in respect thereof, as provided by Section 6 of the Act.

Sir R. Younģ: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why individuals

have not the information which he has just given to me? It would save a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Willink: I think any individual can get information on a point of this kind from the local authority which, in this case, showed considerable consideration because they did, for a considerable period, waive the requirement of previous permission to use part of the requisitioned property.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Nurses and Midwives (Superannuation)

Mr. Linstead: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make a statement about the superannuation arrangements for nurses and midwives.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have received the report of the sub-committee appointed by the Nurses Salaries Committee and the Midwives Salaries Committee jointly with the Scottish Nurses Salaries Committee. The report was submitted to me by Lord Rushcliffe on behalf of the Nurses and Midwives Salaries Committee, and to the Secretary of State by Professor Taylor on behalf of the Scottish Nurses Salaries Committee. The report is being presented as a Command Paper, and copies will be available to-day in the Vote Office. My right hon. Friend and I welcome the report as a most valuable detailed survey of a complex and technical matter and as an important step towards a solution of the difficulties. The suggestions made by the sub-committee will require careful and close study in consultation with all the interested organisations, and my right hon. Friend and I propose to initiate discussions with those concerned at an early date.

Hospital Injections (Parental Consent)

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give instructions that, before a spinal injection or lumbar puncture is given to a minor, the consent of the parents shall first be obtained, except in cases of emergency, in view of the fact that the practice varies in different hospitals.

Mr. Willink: I am advised that it is the general practice of hospitals to obtain the parents' consent in the circumstances referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.


It would not be competent for me to give instructions to hospitals on the subject, but my hon. and gallant Friend's Question will doubtless draw the attention of any hospital, which has not made a practice of obtaining consent, to the desirability of doing so.

Sit J. Lucas: Can my right hon. and learned Friend convey to that particular hospital, about which he has already had information, that it would be desirable if the authorities would get parents' consent first? I raised this case about two months ago.

Mr. Willink: I am prepared to see that the hospital receives a copy of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question and my answer.

Hospital Accommodation, Staffordshire

Mr. Mack: asked the Minister of Health whether the Committee, appointed more than two years ago, and presided over by Sir E. Hart, to make a survey of the existing hospital accommodation and future requirements of the county of Staffordshire, has reported back to him; and will the contents be communicated to the Newcastle-under-Lyme local authority.

Mr. Willink: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the survey of Hospital Services in the West Midlands area. The report of the Survey has not yet been received, but it will in due course be published and made available to all concerned for study and discussion.

Mr. Mack: I take it that the Newcastle authorities will be informed as soon as it is officially published?

Mr. Willink: Certainly.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON POPULATION (REPORT)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Population will be published.

Mr. Willink: I am informed that the Royal Commission, which is continuing to meet once a fortnight, has still a considerable body of evidence to take and many aspects of the inquiry to investigate further. It is not yet possible to indicate the date when the Commission will be in a position to report.

TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many town planning schemes in Engand Wales have been approved; and what are the names of the towns or areas.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The number is 157. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the names of the authorities concerned.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that civilian pensioners in many categories have received increases in their pensions in view of the increased cost of living; and why no such increase has been awarded in the pensions payable to disabled officers and men of the last war.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to increases granted under the Pensions Increase Act, 1944, to oertain classes of civilians in respect of service to the State or local authority, the position is that increases, corresponding broadly to those under the Act, have, in fact, been provided for certain ex-members of the Forces who are receiving pensions for service. This does not, however, afford grounds for revising the rates of disablement pensions of the last war which are based on a cost of living figure actually higher than that obtaining today.

Mr. Bartlett: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of living index is a very misleading index indeed, and does not at all fit the case?

Sir W. Womersley: This House agreed to a Royal Warrant that provided an automatic increase with the increase in the cost of living, and the figure supplied by the Ministry of Labour is the only one by which we can go.

Mr. De la Bère: The cost of living index figure does not mean anything at all.

PENSIONS DRAFTS (WAR SAVINGS APPEALS)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will arrange that future pensions drafts sent by the Paymaster-General to men dis-


abled in the last war are not accompanied by a card bearing the appeal, "You helped to win the last war by service. You can help to win this war by saving."

Sir W. Womersley: I do not consider it undesirable that pensioners who may be in a position to invest part or the whole of their pensions in War Savings should be invited to do so and have their attention drawn to the Pensioners' Savings Scheme, which provides an easy method of regular saving. A considerable number of pensioners have availed themselves of the opportunity of saving through this Scheme, and I see no objection to the continued issue of a postcard in the terms referred to.

Mr. Bartlett: Is not the Minister aware that in very many of these pensions cases it is obviously clear that the pensioner cannot save anything at all, and that this postcard is looked upon as being both cruel and insulting?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not agree, and when I say that pensioners have invested £858,000 in War Savings I think that is the answer to the point my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Bartlett: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of pensioners who have invested the money? Is it not a fact that a great many of them cannot do anything of the kind and that it is a cruel postcard?

Sir W. Womersley: There is nothing cruel about it. It is only calling attention to the fact that they can pay in this money if they so desire. Over 13,000 are taking advantage of the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

International Companies (Taxation)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Lever Brothers and Unilevers, Limited, have been carrying on the business in this country of a Dutch company during the enemy occupation of Holland and putting the profits earned into a special contingencies reserve; why Excess Profits Tax has not been paid upon these sums; and if he will take steps to secure for the British Exchequer a proportion of the profits earned by trade solely carried on in these islands.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I would remind my hon. Friend that I am unable to furnish information as to the tax liability of a particular taxpayer.

Mr. Smith: In view of this concern's international relationship and the huge profit that it has made out of the food of the country during the war, has it met its liability to Income Tax and, if so, for which years?

Sir J. Anderson: If I were to give that information, I should be going against the principle that I have just enunciated.

Mr. Smith: Has this company a number of subsidiary international companies and, if so, why has it set up a special contingencies fund? Has it been set up for the purpose of evading its responsibilities in this country?

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member must really trust the Revenue authorities to see that the interests of the country are protected.

Family Allowances (Income Tax)

Colonel Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the proportion of the family allowances which will be returnable to the Exchequer by way of income tax.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 14th March to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone).

Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend be able to give some estimates based on the assumption that the Income Tax rate is as at present, and the incidence of Income Tax on the various levels of Income Tax payers is distributed roughly as at present?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the law as it stands these allowances are taxable income, and it seemed to me that, by leaving the position as it is and by refraining from adjusting the existing children's allowances under the Income Tax law, we would be giving the maximum benefit to those who need it most. I would only add that this question is of no significance to anyone whose income does not exceed £6 a week.

Old Aģe Pensions

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has given consideration to the further representation s that have been made to him that the increase in pensions granted under the Pensions Increase Act, 1944, should be disregarded in assessing eligibility for an old age pension; and if he is now able to agree to this.

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot add to the reply which I gave on 15th February to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) after full consideration of the representations received or, this subject.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend's mind definitely closed on this subject, or will he be prepared to receive a deputation of Members on all sides to put the case before him?

Sir J. Anderson: I am always prepared to receive a deputation from hon. Members, but I would invite my hon. Friend to consider this. There could hardly be any justification for treating a pension, as supplemented under the recent Act, in a different way from a pension of the same amount granted in the first instance.

FACTORY INSPECTORATE

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue a statement showing the advantages to the workers of the transfer of the factory inspectorate from the Home Office to the Ministry of Labour; and if it is intended to make this transfer permanent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): When a decision is reached as to the peace-time arrangement for the factory inspectorate, the Government will, of course, be ready to give reasons for their conclusion; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

EIRE (ENEMY REPRESENTATIVES)

Dr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether he will again consider approaching the Government of Eire with the request that they will ask the enemy representatives in their country to return home, and, at the same time, ask for an unequivocal assurance that sanctuary will

not be given to war criminals from enemy countries fleeing from retributive justice.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to previous statements made on these matters.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Government of Eire, at the eleventh hour, a final opportunity for repentance, lest later, though sought, they may find no place for repentance?

Mr. McGovern: Will the Prime Minister send a copy of the Sermon on the Mount to the hon. Member?

LIBERATED COUNTRIES (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the economic interrelationship produced by war conditions between the Western liberated countries and this country, he will, with the approval of the Allied Governments concerned, arrange for a deputation of hon. Members, chosen through the usual channels, to visit Northern France, Belgium and the freed portion of Holland in order to see the condition of the people.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government would certainly be willing to give facilities for such a visit, subject to the approval of the Supreme Allied Corn-islander as regards entry into the Army areas.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the usual channels will not always select the most intelligent Members of the House?

The Prime Minister: I think that Members who have gone out from this country on different expeditions have represented in a very high degree the intelligence, ability and character of the House, and we have gained a great deal from the knowledge that they have collected.

Mr. Guy: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the usual channels have a little wider vision and look at the whole of the Benches?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member means that a few more should go each time, the matter can be looked into.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to give single tickets to some Members?

WORLD SECURITY ORGANISATION

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the apprehensions in this country that whilst the Dumbarton Oaks and the Crimea Conferences envisaged action by the new General International Organisation to prevent aggression by any of the smaller Powers, it is not clear that similar machinery can be invoked to prevent aggression by the great Powers; and will he ensure that His Majesty's Government delegates to the San Francisco Conference bear this in mind and see to it that great and small aggressive Powers shall be treated alike.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statements made by the various speakers on behalf of the Government on this subject.

Mr. Davies: Are we not entitled to ask man clarify the point that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals assume that, if a small Power were guilty of aggression, it could be dealt with, but when a great Power is guilty of the same kind of aggression there is no method of dealing with it at all?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that there should be a high degree of axiomatic truth in the fact stated by the hon. Member. We must always remember that in the world into which we are moving our opinions will not be the only ones which will have to be regarded.

Mr. Davies: Are we not entitled to ask therefore that our delegates at the San Francisco Conference will bear this important point in mind when discussing the problems so as to secure equality of treatment for great and small Powers alike?

The Prune Minister: We have made a perfectly voluntary agreement with the other two Great Powers gathered at Yalta, and it prescribes a differentiation between the greatest and the smallest Powers. We may deplore, if we choose, the fact that there is a difference between great and small, between the strong and the weak in the world, but there undoubtedly is such a difference, and it would be foolish to upset good arrangements which are proceeding on a broad front for the sake of trying to obtain immediately what is a hopeless ideal.

Sir Percy Harris: Will there not be free discussion at San Francisco, and will not

our delegates be authorised to listen to sweet reason and argument?

The Prime Minister: I have not taken an intimate and direct part in the arrangements for the procedure at San Francisco. That will fall to others. But I should have thought it would be quite absurd if we were not to take note of the quite definite opinions which have been expressed, and which were focused in the decisions at Yalta.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Lonģ-Term Policy

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now announce the Government's long-term policy for agriculture.

The Minister of Aģriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir.

Mr. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate at all of the point in time or eternity at which he will produce the Government's policy?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I do not like his monosyllabic replies at all?

Women's Land Army

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the leaders of the W.L.A. were consulted by him before the decision was reached not to include members of the W.L.A. in the scheme for service gratuities and business grants.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. The Government was aware of and duly considered the views of the chief administrative officers of the Women's Land Army on this subject.

Mr. Granville: Does that answer mean that the Director-General, Lady Denman, was consulted before her resignation?

Mr. Hudson: Oh, yes.

Mr. Stephen: May I ask the Minister to speak a little louder?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: At what date was the claim first made for a gratuity for women in the Land Army?

Mr. Hudson: It would be improper for me to give that information.

Dr. Summerskill: Why is it improper to tell me the truth?

Mr. Hudson: Because it is not usual for Ministers to disclose in the House the date of the representations that they make.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, may I ask if Lady Denman has been consulted since she resigned?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the Government's decision to disallow gratuities to members of the W.L.A., the Government will consider the payment of a cash sum free of tax for each 12 months' service to enable members of the W.L.A. to purchase civilian clothing and generally re-establish themselves.

Mr. Hudson: If my hon. Friend will refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 8th March, he will see that the Government's decision related to the extension of financial benefits in any form.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of fair play to the Women's Land Army cannot be lightly dismissed, and cannot be dismissed at all?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Were representations made at any time to provide these girls with a civilian outfit or cash allowance similar to members of the Fighting Services?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Butcher: Have any uniformed Services been excluded other than the Land Army?

Wheat Growinģ (Compulsory Direction)

Mr. Edģar Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture from what date the compulsory growing of wheat as an instruction from war agricultural committees will cease.

Mr. Hudson: Owing to weather conditions last autumn directions will not be served or enforced for the growing of wheat for the 1945 harvest, and if the

world food situation permits, compulsory directions will not be served for the growing of this crop for the 1946 harvest.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will make no long-term announcement, will he give an assurance that the position of arable counties in regard to allocation, quantity production and economic price has been fully taken into consideration by him?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Farmers (Bank Loans)

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the extent to which the indebtedness of farmers to the banks has been reduced since 1939.

Mr. Hudson: Although I cannot give figures, I understand that there has been a substantial drop in the total balances due from farmers to the banks since 1939.

Grassland Ploughinģ (Derbyshire)

Mr. Charles White: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will reconsider the instructions being issued to farmers in the north-western part of Derbyshire to plough up further land for the purpose of growing more potatoes and permit this land to be used for milk production and cattle rearing for which the land is more suitable.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year's crops over a good many acres in this part of Derbyshire have not yet been lifted and that great waste of food and of effort has been the result?

Mr. Hudson: Having regard to the exceptional weather we experienced last year, the total loss is negligible.

Mr. Charles White: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the acreage of Chatsworth Park in Derbyshire; how much of the park has been ploughed since September, 1939; and the weight in tons of cereals, roots or other crops grown during this period.

Mr. Hudson: I am quite satisfied with the use being made of Chatsworth Park and with the output of foodstuffs therefrom.

Mr. White: May I ask for a full answer to this Question?

Mr. Granville: As the right hon. Gentleman controls the war agricultural executive committees, which give directions for this sort of thing, cannot he tell us the exact acreage which has been ploughed up?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, I can, but it would take a long time, and if my hon. Friend likes, I will circulate a supplementary statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend is responsible.

Following is the supplementary statement:
The acreage of Chatsworth Park is 1,127 acres. Of this area, 743 acres are wooded, flooded, or steep hillsides unsuitable for cultivation. Of the remainder, 136½ acres, including the family golf course of 44 acres which has remained arable, have been ploughed. The rest was ploughed and directly reseeded for the purpose of improving the grazing. The park land is in general unsuitable for growing corn crops. The number of cattle belonging to farmers which have been grazed has risen from 283 in 1938 to 715 in 1944. Requirements of the county war agricultural executive committee have been fully complied with by the estate.

Milk (Price)

Briģadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture when does the extra payment of five-eighths of Id. per gallon to milk-producers start; what are to be the payments per gallon per month; and for how long does it last.

Mr. Hudson: Prices paid to milk producers will be adjusted so as to secure an overall average increase of ⅝d. per gallon throughout the year commencing 1st April, 1945. Actual prices for England and Wales which will vary monthly and according to regions will be announced in due course.

Briģadier-General Clifton Brown: Last week my right hon. Friend said that the prices would be in the papers. The price in the papers was 5s. 8d. a gallon, and next day it was corrected to five-eighths of a penny. The farmers are still in doubt, and why cannot my right hon. Friend give some details in the House of Commons instead of giving them to the papers?

Mr. Hudson: Because the actual details of producers' prices month by month have not been decided.

Briģadier-General Clifton Brown: When will they be decided, as farmers want to know?

Mr. McGovern: Is there any use in the Department of Agriculture having these answers typed out if the Minister cannot give them distinctly?

Mr. De la Bère: Oh, for a little common sense.

Wire Worm (Insecticide)

Briģadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the new insecticide Gammexane has yet been proved effective against wire worm; and whether it will be available to farmers for this year's spring sowings.

Mr. Hudson: I have not yet had definite evidence that this insecticide is effective against wire worm. A supply of it is available.

Waģes Decision, Lincolnshire

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the unanimous decision of the Holland Agricultural Wages Committee for advances in wages was not ratified by the Central Wages Board; and what steps he is taking to see that unanimous trade decisions of this character are not overruled in this manner.

Mr. Hudson: I have no information as to the considerations which the Board had in mind, and in any case I have no power to interfere as the Board is a statutory authority with complete discretion in the exercise of its powers.

Mr. Butcher: Does not my right hon. Friend think it undesirable that local agreements voluntarily and unanimously entered into should be overridden by some central authority?

Mr. Hudson: That has been decided by Parliament.

Sir William Wayland: Is it not a fact that the land in this district is some of the richest in England and does not bear comparison with other land?

KEW GARDENS (GLASSHOUSES AND MUSEUMS)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the loss to students


involved in the continued closing of the glasshouses and museums at Kew Gardens; and if he will take steps to open them at an early date and, in the meantime, make some provision for students to have at least a limited access to these collections.

Mr. Hudson: It is the intention of the Director to reopen the houses and museums at Kew as soon as this is compatible with a due regard for public safety and the well-being of the collections. In so far as war-time conditions permit, limited access is being afforded to students for purposes of study.

Mr. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the museums which are not covered with glass shall be opened without delay?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps the hon. Member will write me a note on the subject, and I will see what can be done.

ORDNANCE SURVEY (REQUISITIONED HOUSE, BOSCOMBE)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much longer it is proposed that the Ordnance Survey should keep as offices a 12-roomed house in Christchurch Road, Boscombe; whether, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation in Bournemouth, he will release this property at the earliest opportunity; and what effort has been made during the war to arrange for the Ordnance Survey staff to carry out their work under conditions similar to those obtaining in the fighting Services, as in the case of Naval survey work.

Mr. Hudson: The work that is being carried out by the Ordnance Survey staff at Bournemouth is experimental work preparatory to the post-war re-survey of this country which is necessary in order that up to date maps may be available for the various post-war planning and housing schemes. The staff employed at Bournemouth are unsuitable for work under active service conditions. It is estimated that the accommodation will be required for another 12 months.

Sir L. Lyle: Are not a lot of these people who are engaged in Ordnance Survey work learners, and do they not come into the gardens and houses of a lot of my constituents and upset them very greatly?

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that on these new maps all the properties still requisitioned by the Government shall be marked in red?

Sir L. Lyle: May I ask for a reply on the question of whether these are not learners?

DENTURES (MANUFACTURE)

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, as rubber is no longer available for the manufacture of dentures, acrylic resins are now used for this purpose; that firms who are not members of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders cannot obtain supplies of this material, owing to an agreement between the Association and Imperial Chemical Industries, under which supplies are restricted to members of the Association; and if he will take steps to bring to an end this arrangement in restraint of trade.

Captain Waterhouse: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The rules of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders, of which Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, are members, provide that members may supply dealers who are nonmembers with acrylic resins, but only at the full retail price. Such an arrangement is not illegal.

MILITARY HOSPITAL, BELFAST (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Campbell College Military Hospital, Belfast, at the inadequate supply of food for the patients who are forced to supplement their rations from outside sources at their own expense, and at the disciplinary code; and whether he will take immediate steps to have these grievances removed.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am unaware of any such dissatisfaction among patients in the hospital. I am, however, having these complaints investigated.

Dr. Little: Will the Minister have an immediate inquiry made into the whole matter, in justice to our wounded soldiers?

Mr. Henderson: I have just told my hon. Friend that we are going into the matter.

ESCAPED GERMAN PRISONERSOF-WAR, SOUTH WALES

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has a statement to make about the escape of prisoners-of-war from the camp at Bridgend, Glamorgan.

Mr. A. Henderson: An escape by 67 German prisoners-of-war, of whom 65 were officers, took place at 04.00 hours on 11th March from a camp in South Wales. 48 of them have now been recaptured. The escape was effected by means of a tunnel 20 yards long, the entrance to which was in a corner of a living hut, an 18 inch square of 4-inch concrete having been cut out and carefully camouflaged. A court of inquiry is being convened.

Mr. E. J. Williams: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether the inquiry which will be conducted will include the question of the siting of the camp itself?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: What kind of implements were used in this escape?

Mr. Henderson: We had better wait until the inquiry takes place.

Sir H. Williams: How is it that these men were able to dispose of the very large amount of earth from the tunnel without anybody spotting them?

Mr. Henderson: We had better wait until we have seen the report of the court of inquiry.

Mr. James Griffiths: In view of the fact that the inquiry may not cover the point, will the Minister consider whether this site is suitable?

Mr. Henderson: We will look into that aspect of the question.

Mr. Edģar Granville: Will the Minister now expedite the arrangements for receiving a deputation of Members of this House who have continually called attention to Nazi activities among prisoners-of-war?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir.
Tuesday (3rd Allotted Supply Day)—Report stage of the Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account. A Debate will take place on Civil Aviation. Report of Ways and Means Resolution.
Wednesday—Second Reading of the Distribution of Industry Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday and Friday—All stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. An opportunity will arise for a Debate on Housing.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of a Debate on the matters coming before the Conference which is to take place before the actual San Francisco Conference is held? In the last Debate a great deal of time was taken up with Poland and so on and although the question of San Francisco was referred to, there was no Debate. Since then, statements have been made with regard to the procedure of the proposed security council and I suggest that a day's Debate before 25th April might be useful.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider that suggestion. I think it probably would be desirable. We have a little time after Easter before the date of the Conference, and I think a Debate might take place then. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of saying that we had provisionally arranged for a Debate to take place next week on the subject of supplies to liberated countries, but, as the House is aware, the Lord President of the Council has recently returned from the Continent, and it would be more convenient to the Government if that Debate could take place during the week after next, and I am proposing to allot a day then.

Earl Winterton: While thanking the Government for agreeing to a Debate on supplies to liberated countries, may I ask whether it is definitely settled that there will be a Debate before Easter, or at least in the following week?

Mr. Eden: My idea was that we could have it during the week after next. I would like to give advance notice to the House that we propose that the House should adjourn on Thursday, 29th March, for the Easter Recess and meet again on Tuesday, 10th April. We propose to meet at II a.m. on Thursday, 29th March. Questions will be taken.

Sir Percy Harris: As a great number of Members are desirous of speaking on the Distribution of Industry Bill, which adversely affects a great number of districts, is the Leader of the House aware that there is a desire for a second day? If that is not possible, will he consider an extension of time?

Mr. Eden: I have considered an extension of time, and I agree that it is desirable.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: Will it be possible to find time in the not too distant future for discussion of two Motions standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Shute)?

[That the whole question of the counting of temporary service for Civil Service pensions should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.]

[That the case of the age-barred officers should be met and that superannuation practice in the Civil Service should be so amended as to preclude such cases arising in the future.]

About 100 other Members have their names down to these Motions.

Mr. Eden: If my hon. and learned Friend will put that question to me next week, I may be able to indicate what is likely to happen.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication when the decisions and recommendations of the Bretton Woods Conference will he discussed in the House? Will he bear in mind that the matter has already been before both Houses in the U.S.A. and I believe that secret discussions are now going on between Lord Keynes and Members of this House with the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is always so suspicious of secret discussions. I can only repeat the undertaking which the

Government have already given, that an opportunity will be given to this House for a discussion before any commitment is made by the Government.

Mr. Purbrick: May I ask when legislation will be introduced for the establishment of the Ministry for Civil Aviation?

Mr. Eden: I hope at an early date.

Mr. Bowles: In view of the announcement that a Debate will take place on civil aviation next week on the Civil Estimates, and the fact that it will be very difficult for hon. Members to express any opinion on whether they agree with the White Paper or not, cannot the right hon. Gentleman provide another chance later for a discussion on the White Paper, followed by a vote?

Mr. Eden: That is hardly a matter for me. I understand that next Tuesday will be a suitable opportunity. The Debate will be quite wide.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an agricultural Debate at as early a date as possible in order that a Motion concerning the Women's Land Army may be considered?

[That in the opinion of this House, the rejection of the claim of some form of practical recognition on demobilisation for members of the Women's Land Army is unreasonable and calculated to destroy the confidence of the Women's Land Army in the importance of their contribution to the maintenance of our maximum food supplies and asking the Government to reconsider the matter in the national interest.]

Mr. Eden: I would like to consider that question.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand that the Debate on housing will occupy two days?

Mr. Eden: Two days—Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Tinker: When can the right hon. Gentleman give a day to discuss a Motion on the subject of war gratuities?

[That in the opinion of this House, the scheme for war gratuities outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th February, should be amended so as to make one uniform rate according to length of service applicable to all ranks, whether men or women.]

Mr. Eden: I cannot give a definite date, but I still hope that it will be before Easter. I cannot be more definite.

Mr. Butcher: In view of the importance of the housing Debate, may I ask whether it is intended to see that a Member of the War Cabinet will participate in the discussion?

Mr. Eden: That is a matter for consideration. Certainly the Ministers responsible will take part in the discussion.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the Scottish Education Bill has now been introduced, will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Second Reading Debate before the Easter Recess?

Mr. Eden: Although I have the greatest desire to meet the wishes of the hon. Member, I am sure that he will want time to consider the Bill in detail.

Colonel Burton: May I ask what will be the date of the Budget Statement?

Mr. Eden: I cannot deal with that matter now.

Mr. Bowies: In view of the importance of civil aviation, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that whatever Debate takes place on Tuesday, the Government will do nothing to implement the White Paper, and that any company, shipping or railway, which starts getting active in the matter will do so at its own risk?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give any such undertaking at all. What we desire on Tuesday is to hear the views of the House and, like all Governments that are wise, we shall be deeply impressed by them.

Commander Aģnew: Will the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill be taken before Easter?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot say.

Miss Rathbone: Is it possible to say when the Committee stage of the Family Allowances Bill will be taken?

Mr. Eden: Not next week. As soon as we can afterwards.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Leader of the House agree to postpone the General Election until we get all these Bills through?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Local Authorities Loans Bill, with an Amendment,

Wages Councils Bill, with Amendments.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS BILL

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 35].

WAGES COUNCILS BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 36].

BILL REPORTED

HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be considered upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed [Bill 37].

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 56].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [7th March]

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1945

NUMBERS

1. "That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946."

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES AND OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONNEL SERVING WITH THE FLEET

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of

certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1940."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding ģ10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for expenditure beyond the sump already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropritions in Aid


Vote.
£
£


1. Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with, the Fleet
10
40,000,000

First Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Astor: During the Debate on the Navy Estimates, the First Lord had a great flood of Scottish and Welsh eloquence breaking over his head, but I hope that he will stand up to various suggestions that were made to him, notably the one that he should invite the R.N.V.R. to give up their stripes. We value our distinctive stripes, and we hope that he will pay no attention to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies). [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because he knew nothing about the subject and was not in any way representing the views of the junior officers. That is why. I was very glad to hear what the First Lord said about the institution of a new scientific development and research department at the Admiralty. That announcement has been very well received by the Navy. We only hope that there will be effective machinery for correlating its work with the scientific research done by the other two Services and by the Lord President's Department. It is no use depending on good personal


relations between scientists, who, after all, are inclined to be like prima donnas. To get that real correlation, it is important to have machinery by which they have to compare notes and work together. Before the war we were very handicapped because there was no research in this country in regard to motor boats for the Light Coastal Forces—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to say the hon. Member has lost his chance. This Vote deals entirely with pay, and the subject he is raising is out of Order. That should have been raised on the Vote to which the House has already agreed.

Mr. Astor: Last year and the year before you gave a rather wider latitude on Vote A, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We have passed Vote A.

Mr. Astor: Does the Vote before us include conditions, pay and promotion?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but it has nothing to do with motor torpedo boats.

Mr. Astor: I hope that the conditions in pay will include right treatment for the Fleet Air Arm after the war. I hope the First Lord will not reject too lightly the precedent of the Air Force for having short service commissions, which may have many advantages. As regards pay and promotion in the R.N.V.R., I desire to say that, at the moment, there are still not the same satisfactory prospects of promotion to the higher ranks, which has been achieved for the Reserve officers in the Army and Air Force. I hope very much that even now, at this late stage in the war, there will be a greater feeling that the Reserve officer and the naval officer are taken entirely on their respective merits. I wish to say something also about the pay and prospects of the Royal Marines. The First Lord said that the Royal Marines have unique qualities. Before the war, they had not a role worthy of the prestige and discipline of the Corps. This war has produced situations in which the Royal Marines have shown great skill in amphibious operations, and we hope the First Lord will consider, the role of the Corps after the war and create opportunities for Royal Marine officers to reach higher employment.
I would like to deal with the question of the welfare of the people who have gone to the Pacific. We hope the First Lord will not imitate the War Office, who

allowed the question of welfare to go by default for nearly two years, and who, after considerable Parliamentary criticism, sent Lord Munster out there, and found everything we said proved true. We hope the First Lord will set the standard for welfare in the Pacific. We should give our Navy the standard of welfare which the American Navy are receiving in the same area. We should not be regarded in any way as an inferior Navy in the provision of things like newspapers, rest camps, entertainment, etc. As the W.R.N.S. are going there I hope that special steps will be taken for their welfare, and that they will get adequate tropical outfit, both in quantity and quality. I hope the First Lord will put on his pay roll an energetic and authoritative senior officer to look after the welfare of those serving in the Pacific.

Commander Aģnew: Is it not the case that it is one of the duties of senior officers, whether they are captains of ships or are serving in some subordinate capacity, to look after the welfare of the officers and men under their command? Are special welfare officers needed?

Mr. Astor: Most emphatically they are. I have certainly seen in the Eastern Mediterranean that all the commanding officers were so busy in the essential business of war, that they had not the time to prepare for these facilities ashore, rest camps and so on, which do require somebody's time. I hope that something will be done in the case of the Pacific Fleet.

Mr. Speaker: Welfare work certainly comes under Vote A but not under Vote I.

Commander Aģnew: May I ask the hon. Member whether his opinion that there is need for the appointment of special welfare officers is based upon sea experience of his own or only upon what he had heard and from his visits to some shore establishments?

Mr. Astor: It is based upon a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the problem, and especially of what is needed when people come ashore. Most welfare work is done when these sailors arrive in port and need various facilities for recreation. On that I think I have a certain amount of experience, and I not only reflect my own views but views which have been put to me by many officers with sea ex-


perience. I have been back in this House for two and a half years and I cannot pretend to be up to date on this subject, but I have spoken to a great many officers, and I hope the First Lord will realise that the views I have put were not my own but those of a great many officers who are proud to serve under his leadership.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Would it be in Order to call attention to the organisation of the Sea Cadet movement?

Mr. Speaker: That does not come into the question of the wages of officers and men, and it would not be in Order.

3.32 P.m.

Commander Aģnew: When the time comes to review pay, may I ask the First Lord to look into the system of mulcting pay as a punishment and also consider the effect which that may have upon the pensions of men later? A comparatively young seaman may commit some offence very early in his career, perhaps when he has hardly started his career, and that offence has an effect upon the pension which he will ultimately receive which no amount of good service subsequently can altogether eradicate. Will the First Lord look into the naval discipline code with respect to the system of mulcting pay and its effect upon pensions to see whether he can improve the present position?

3.33 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): I am a little sorry that the opportunity went by and that my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) was not able to elaborate in the way he might have done some of the things which he obviously had in mind, because there was a certain amount which I could have said. As things are, all I can say is that those subjects which he did succeed, skilfully, in inserting into the Debate will be considered, as well as the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew).

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [13th March]

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1945

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

1. "That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946."

PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944

3. "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Army
10
160,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: I hope that on this Vote we shall be permitted to have a reasonably wide Debate, in order that one or two matters may be raised which may not appear on the face of it to come within the terms of the Vote. The record which the Secretary of State for War had to present to us two days ago must have given great satisfaction to the House, and certainly put an end to the old story of this country always "muddling through" to military achievement. Against a background of so much success one hesitates to draw attention to minor defects in the great organisation of our Army, but this is an occasion when anyone with specialised knowledge can make useful suggestions which may help


towards improving a machine which we all recognise to be, broadly, most admirable.
The particular point to which I wish to draw attention this afternoon is the organisation of a certain section of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) has paid a compliment to the medical services of the Army, but there is one respect in which I believe those services to be capable of very substantial improvement, and that is in the supply of medical and pharmaceutical equipment. The R.A.M.C. is peculiar among Corps in the Army in that it is very difficult for the private soldier or non-commissioned officer to get promotion to commissioned rank, because, broadly, commissions in the R.A.M.C. are reserved for medical men. There is a small trickle of promotions, usually after long service and through the quartermaster grade, but not otherwise. The result is that the greater part of the administration and the organisation of the equipment side of the R.A.M.C. is in the hands of medical officers under whom medical equipment and medical stores are dealt with by Army dispensers who, by the nature of things, practically never reach commissioned rank. Even in a great hospital like the Cambridge Hospital at Aldershot, which is to all intents and purposes a civil hospital, dealing with the wives and children of those in the Army, there were before the war only almost primitive arrangements for the supply of medicines.
Our organisation is in complete contrast with the organisation in Dominion and foreign Armies. There they have followed the policy that the doctor does doctoring and that the supply of medicines and pharmaceutical equipment is the responsibility of pharmacists. In this war we have in the Army some 800 pharmacists, but practically all of them are used as sergeant-dispensers and not as pharmacists, and they have no real responsibility for the organisation of the medical stores as a whole. On three occasions, in 1918, 1920 and 1921, the War Office have appointed committees to look into this question. Two of the three committees were composed entirely of R.A.M.C. personnel. Each of those committees recommended to the Secretary of State for War for the time being that pharmacists of commissioned rank should be appointed to undertake the supervision of the phar-

maceutical service, in other words to bring our Army into line with the Armies in our Dominions and in foreign countries. For some reason none of those recommendations, although they were the recommendations of officers of the R.A.M.C., has ever been adopted by the War Office.
In this war we are seeing the results of that policy. In the first place a certain number of medical men in the R.A.M.C. are being used for medical supply administration, although there is an extreme shortage of doctors both in civil life and in the Army. Secondly, there is a waste of pharmaceutical manpower. At the present time pharmacists who have been called up from civil life, although they are badly needed in civil life, are waiting about in the Queen Alexandra Hospital at Millbank or in Edinburgh or in Leeds for six or nine months or even a year for posting as sergeant-dispensers because it is not the job, apparently, of anyone in particular to see that that section of the R.A.M.C. is efficiently organised.

Squadron Leader Fleminģ: Could the hon. Member tell us how these pharmacists are employed while at Millbank or Leeds?

Mr. Linstead: They are employed in the kitchen very largely, or with a pail and scrubbing brush in cleaning barrack floors. The Christmas before last, when we were faced with the prospect of a severe influenza epidemic, we still had men in the R.A.M.C. awaiting posting while civilians were badly in need of their services.
The other respect in which weakness is showing itself is in the matter of equipment. In London recently there was an exhibition of Army equipment showing the modern methods of packing which the Army are adopting to save bulk and weight, but nowhere in that exhibition was there any demonstration of new methods of packing drugs or surgical supplies, or anything to indicate that the Army had improved their technique in that respect since the last war. Recently a man with experience of the R.A.M.C. told me that so far as field ambulances are concerned there had been no substantial change in equipment between 1918 and 1939. The reason, I think, is that it is the job of no one in particular to do the thinking about this.
I have had many reports from those serving in the R.A.M.C. and from those who have seen in France and Holland how things are working on the spot, reporting for example that drugs are supplied in paper bags to our Forces abroad, just as they would be sent from a wholesaler in London, let us say, to a chemist five miles away. I could give many examples but I will take two or three. There is a dye stuff used for burns called crystal violet. About five grammes at a time are needed. That is being supplied to our Forces overseas in 1 lb. and 2 lb. lots, and they have somehow to make up five-gramme quantities for the field ambulances. The Americans recognise that five-gramme quantities are needed and supply this preparation wrapped up in five-gramme lots. Ointments are being supplied in 10 lb. and 7 lb. quantities, although they have to be given out, probably, in 4-ounce quantities.
As regards hypodermic syringes, time after time one hears complaints that a particular type of syringe widely used in the Army is fitted with loose pistons, that the graduations cannot be read, and that the cement with which the nozzle is fixed to the barrel crumbles. The position was brought home to me by an unsolicited report from a Canadian pharmacist officer whose field ambulance lost all its equipment while it was proceeding abroad. It was refitted with English field ambulance equipment. The first thing he had to do was to scrap his syringes and to get a fresh supply. Being a man of some resource he did that by begging or borrowing or otherwise obtaining a supply of whisky and trading that to the Americans for 200 or 300 syringes. There is ample evidence that more thought is needed in this matter of medical and pharmaceutical supplies. I am not suggesting that there is a great scandal, but I am suggesting that there is inefficiency and lack of imagination.
The reasons why these reforms have not been brought about by the War Office I believe to be two-fold. First, they are afraid lest if they were to open the door to promotion for the pharmacist, from sergeant to commissioned rank, they would have to do the same for other groups of professional personnel: the radiographer and the physiotherapist, and a number of others. I believe that the R.A.M.C. have to face that issue, and to

realise that the time is past when they can limit commissioned rank, broadly speaking, to the medical officer. In any case, the equipment side is such a large side of the R.A.M.C. organisation that it justifies special consideration, apart altogether from the individual professional service which the pharmacist may be able to render. We are spending much public money in graduating men, from four or five universities, as pharmacists. They are going into O.T.C.'s in those universities, and are the very personnel that one would think the R.A.M.C. would be glad to employ. Instead, when they leave the universities they go into any other branch of the Service, rather than into the R.A.M.C. They are going into the infantry or the guns, because they know that their powers of leadership will not be used in the R.A.M.C. I hope I have not presented this as being merely a question of the status of the pharmacist. It is something much greater than that.
I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that in India circumstances took charge, and, presumably because they were further away from Whitehall there, the pharmaceutical service has of necessity passed into the hands of the pharmacist. A pharmacist, who is a lieutenant-colonel, has taken charge of the pharmaceutical supplies in India. Each of our Dominions has its pharmaceutical service, looked after by pharmacists. The United States has its own Pharmacist Corps. For a long while the War Office had the support of the Air Ministry in refusing to have specialist pharmaceutical officers, but even that support has gone. The Navy has a pharmaceutical service, manned by pharmacists. They are civil servants, but if they go afloat they are commissioned. The Air Ministry has now deserted my right hon. Friend, and recently has commissioned at any rate seven pharmacists as medical store officers. So our Army remains the only army fighting in this war, and the only one of our three Services, in which this reform, recommended by three War Office committees, has not been carried out. One feels that the present, which is a time of transition between war and peace, is the time when this question should be examined again by the Secretary of State for War and his advisers.
Should we be faced with another war, an important question will be that of a


proper allocation of man-power between the Services and civilian life. I am certain that it is only by organisation of the pharmaceutical service of the Army by pharmacists that you are going to get that proper allocation of these specialist people. Then my right hon. Friend will have an efficient service, where at the moment I fear he has only a second-rate service; it will give the man in the Army the same pharmaceutical service that he gets in civilian life; it will prevent waste of manpower; it will free doctors from administrative work, so that they can do their real work of doctoring; and it will bring the British Army into line with other armies. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has already given some time to examining this matter, will appoint yet a fourth War Office committee to look into it, particularly in its relation to the Army after the war, and that he will see whether this small unsatisfactory corner of the great organisation for which he is responsible cannot be brought up to the same pitch of efficiency as the rest of the British Army.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Bellenģer: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) has taken this opportunity to raise what is evidently a matter of importance, not only to him but to the class of individuals for whom he has spoken to-day. Before the war it was customary to have a two-days' Debate on the Estimates, because one day in the year was insufficient, even in those days, to deal with the wide number of questions affecting the Fighting Services in which hon. Members were interested. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rather took umbrage last Tuesday because many hon. Members had particular points to put to him, which they had perhaps already put to him in the form of Questions on Tuesday mornings, or, as he called it, his "Tuesday serenade." I wondered why my right hon. Friend was, as I thought, a little petulant towards hon. Members because they raised these subjects, and I wondered why he should have referred to the Tuesday morning Question Time as his "serenade." I took the occasion to look at the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of "serenade." I found that it is
An evening song or instrumental piece, sung or played by a lover at his lady's window.

The right hon. Gentleman is usually adept in his use of words, although he does not always utter them in those dulcet tones which one would associate with an evening song sung before a lady's window. Far from being harmonious on Tuesday mornings, or even during the Estimates Debates, my right hon. Friend, I am afraid, sometimes indulges in discord. But I think the House would rightly resent any attempt by the Executive or the Secretary of State to prevent hon. Members, even during the war, urging on the attention of Ministers those matters which we, at least, think are very important, and to which we require an answer. We are concerned also with the exploits of our Forces—and we were indeed pleased to hear a very good recital of those exploits by my right hon. Friend last Tuesday.
My right hon. Friend had various points put to him in that Debate. We all recognise that he was at some disadvantage because, as he told us, his ration of voice, at any rate at that late hour, prohibited him from giving us full answers to the questions which had been posed. I hope that he has improved in health and that he will be to-day a little more forthcoming. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) not only brought prominently to the attention of this House the question of tanks—with which my right hon. Friend attempted to deal—but also gave chapter and verse for something which I consider is very serious, namely, the attempt which, he said, was made to interfere with hon. Members' rights by a form of censorship by a military commander. I do not know whether what my hon. Friend wanted to say to the troops in Cairo was something that we could all agree with, but we should be very careful to see that whenever an hon. Member is permitted to speak to the Armed Forces, and does not say anything subversive, he should have the same freedom of speech as he has in any other place, and that there should be no interference with him by a military commander, and in particular that he should not be asked to submit his speech to censorship in advance. I can think of nothing more derogatory to the dignity of Parliament than that a military commander should force a Member of this House, who is elected by thousands of electors, to submit what he has to say,


before he is allowed to speak to troops. Other questions were put to my right hon. Friend. He gave the excuse for not answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that he could not deal with the matter because he had not the facts at his fingers' ends. Has he got those facts now? If so, will he say something to the House about the matter?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) brought up the question of prisoner of war camps in this country, which the Secretary of State dismissed by saying that he could not give an answer then, although he rather doubted the accuracy of my right hon. Friend's statements, but he said that he would examine the accusations of misleading that the hon. Member had made, and would take steps to see if they were correct. If an hon. Member alleges that the Government give a wrong impression in this House, or that Ministers make misleading statements, surely it is both in the interests of Ministers and the duty of Ministers to put us all in possession of the facts, so that we can judge if the matter needs our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) brought to the attention of the House a question which affected only his constituency, but it is discourteous for the Secretary of State or the Financial Secretary not to take the trouble to give some answer to an hon. Member, even if the question affects only the hon. Member's constituency.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Can my hon. Friend say when I have refused to answer questions?

Mr. Bellenģer: I am not suggesting that my hon. and learned Friend refused to answer questions. What I am saying is that the Secretary of State did not give an answer on this matter.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): I think that the hon. Gentleman is, quite unintentionally, misleading the House. I said that the facts of this case had not been brought to my personal attention. I said I would certainly look into it and I could not give an answer without looking into it. That is the position still. I am looking into it. There was no intention of burking discussion or of being discourteous, but I

really cannot answer questions at short notice and without an opportunity of investigating them. I am investigating the matter.

Mr. Bellenģer: I accept that unreservedly, but all I am asking is that the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House.

Sir J. Griģģ: I did at the time and if I conveyed a contrary impression I am very sorry. I intended to convey to the House that the case had not been brought to my personal notice, and that I would do everything to investigate it.

Mr. Bellenģer: I accept that too, but my intention in introducing this issue was to see whether my right hon. Friend could answer the question. He has given an answer and I am satisfied as far as that case is concerned.
I am going to raise a matter of great importance to the Army and of considerable importance to the general public. It is as to whether the War Office and the Army Council are taking adequate and appropriate steps to recruit the postwar Army. I said—and I think others too shared my opinion—that I was not in favour of a prolonged period of conscription for the Services. My right hon. Friend merely dealt with the case that I put, at, I regret to say, greater length than usual, by saying—the actual words will be found in col. 198 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—that he was going to make some remarks about my speech. He got the same impression of my remarks as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) but because I had tried to disabuse the hon. Member of opinions he then held of my speech, the right hon. Gentleman said he would reserve his observations until he had had an opportunity of reading it in cold print. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has done me the honour and the privilege of reading my remarks in cold print and that, therefore, he will today take the opportunity of making some reply to those remarks. I am concerned in this matter, not only with the point of getting a proper Regular Army after the war, but with the fact that now there are huge numbers of compassionate cases, with which all hon. Members have to deal and which seem to be dealt with very scantily, perhaps owing to force of circumstances during the war and so long as the National Service Acts operate. Many of us feel that, even if those cases cannot


be given more sympathetic consideration than they receive now, when the war with Germany comes to an end there should be greater elasticity in the Services, so that many of these very hard cases—many of which I and, I am sure, other hon. Members have personally investigated—shall receive better consideration than they are getting at the present time.
I wish to say no more to the House this afternoon but I do invite the Secretary of State in the right spirit to give an answer as far as he is able to hon. Members who come to this House and voice in some cases the grievances of the Services and of their own constituents and to urge improvements in the manner in which those Services are operated. We certainly can use the "Tuesday serenade," to put our questions and to get some sort of answers, though the answers are, so often, unsatisfactory. That is why we take this occasion not only of repeating our questions but of elaborating them.

4.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I have listened to a number of speeches on the Army by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). They are generally rather longer than the speech he has given to us this afternoon and I have always wondered why they were delivered. I do not know what his qualifications are to speak for the Army. He may have very great qualifications—I do not know them—and he may really be advocating matters which are of some importance. I listened to his speech this afternoon and, for the life of me, with the best will in the world, I have not the slightest idea what he was talking about.

Mr. Bellenģer: That is not my fault.

Sir C. Headlam: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be quicker in the uptake than I am. My only object to-day is to put forward two or three matters which seem to me to be important when w e are considering the post-war Army. I believe that I am entitled to do so and I am certain that you, Mr. Speaker, will call me to Order if I am wrong in bringing forward the two matters which I have in mind. We had, during the Debate the other night, a most interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Smeth-

wick (Lieut.-Colonel Wise) with regard to the post-war Army and in the main I am in agreement with most of what he said.
We must in the future have, there is no doubt about it, an Army that will be ready for action should the occasion arise. In any case, whatever kind of settlement is arrived at for the future control of armaments throughout the world, it is clear that we, as a nation, as a Commonwealth of Nations and as an Empire, must be prepared to play our part in that concerted action against an aggression, whatever it may be. Therefore, we cannot afford to be in the position in which we were in the last decade before the present war.
When we talk about the Concert of Europe, or combined action against an aggressor Power, we must be prepared to be in a position to play our part in any such collective security. It is surely obvious, then, however much we may dislike it, that we must be prepared to play our part in a land war. Whether there is going to be another great war on land or not is a matter which none of us can foretell, nor can any man foresee what such a war may necessitate, but we shall have to be prepared for any eventuality. We must maintain a post-war Army. It has taken us a long time, in this country, to realise that an Army is of little avail unless there are men to serve in it. The whole teaching of the so-called experts of war before this war began was that defence was so much stronger than offence that we really did not require large numbers of men; that trenches and small mobile offensive forces were all that we needed. We know what this school of thought resulted in.
How are we to build up our Army of the future? I, personally, believe that we shall have to do what every other country is doing, and Lave a national Army of some sort; whether it is to be based on the Territorial system or, whether, as I gathered the hon. and gallant Member for Smethwick foresaw, we should have a conscript Army and a regular professional force for the defence of the Empire in general, and on the top of that a Territorial Army for all and sundry, I do not know. I am not prepared to give an opinion at the moment. But one thing seems to me absolutely inevitable. We shall have to maintain a regular Army for the defence of the


Colonies and the Empire of sufficient strength for the purpose. Before the last war the system was that troopers went forth at a certain period of the year, every year, and deposited so many relieving battalions in so many outposts of the Empire, at Hong Kong, at Singapore, at Aden and other places. Every year two or three battalions were dropped and two or three battalions were taken away and that is all we did for the defence of the Empire so far as the Army was concerned. The war with Japan has shown us that it is not a very satisfactory way of guarding a far-flung Empire and we must realise henceforward that our regular Army must be strong enough for the military defence of the Colonies and the Empire as a whole.
How is this to be accomplished? This is the question which, I think, the Secretary of State for War is now considering. He told us as much in his speech on the Estimates. He said that he and the Army Council were busy considering this matter, and I only venture to suggest one thing to him. I suggest that when we are building up our new regular Army, the Army which is to be responsible for the defence of the Empire, it should be built up on the traditions of the past. Those of us who have studied military history and who know anything about the glorious history of the British Army know that its whole force and character and discipline depend upon regimental tradition. Therefore, I say to the Secretary of State for War that I hope when he is making his new Army he will bear that fact in mind. There is a tendency to change to-day what is called in France the "esprit de regiment" and substitute for it the "esprit de l'Armée." Such a policy would be a mistake so far as the British Army is concerned. We all of us should read the records of the British Army, what each regiment has done in the past, what is each regiment's tradition of service, what is its history, and then we would realise what all this means to the morale and discipline and esprit de corps of a regiment and renders it a real force in battle.
I am certain that we shall be making a tremendous mistake if we do anything to jeopardise the regimental spirit and tradition in the Army. Equally so, I am certain of another thing, and that is that the local associations and connections

which link regiments in the British Army with particular counties and cities should be maintained to the utmost. The Territorial system was derided when it first came into effect in this country. Believe me, the territorial association to-day is something which counts tremendously with soldiers; men do fight better and work better together if they come from the same part of the country. I hope therefore that the Secretary of State and the Army Council in their planning for a new Army will bear these things in mind.
There is one other matter which I should like to air in the House to-day and that is the question of pay. There is no doubt that—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss that question.

Sir C. Headlam: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I had hoped to say something on the subject of pay because it seems to me a matter of the utmost importance and, when the time comes, it will have to be looked into most carefully. But of course I cannot pursue that point now. I will only say once again that when this new Army of ours is brought into being, its constitution should be based upon the traditions of the past and upon the spirit of the regiment with all that it means to the soldier.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I do not intend to follow the theme of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) or the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on the question of talking to the troops. In my experience of Army life, they had too much talking to them and too many lectures. What I do want to say is on the question of profiteering abroad as it affects our troops. I do not think the pay of our soldiers will stand up to the profiteering which takes place abroad, in Egypt, in Palestine, and, I understand, to a large extent in Italy, I do not know about the Continent, but no doubt our Allies on the Continent will follow the example which has been set to them in the other countries, and I am wondering if the Secretary of State for War, or the Government, has done, or will do, something in an attempt to make representations to the Governments of


those countries about this profiteering. My right hon. Friend has only to ask a few soldiers who have recently returned, and I think he will find that I am by no means over-stating the case.
When I returned from the Middle East, I asked a number of questions on this matter, and suggested to the Secretary of State for War that we might try to persuade the Egyptian Government and individual traders to be satisfied with a profit of 100 per cent., but I understand that that has not yet been accomplished. I saw in the "Daily Express" of 3rd February—and whether this is a Socialist or a Conservative newspaper I have not been able to make up my mind lately—a short note which said, in a message from Cairo, that the price of whisky in the N.A.A.F.I. had been raised by 10s. per bottle in Egypt, making it 22s., and that the reason was increased Egyptian taxation. I do not know if this only applies to whisky, or to beer supplied in tins and bottles and also to beer brewed in Egypt.

Mr. Stokes: Is it self-bottling beer?

Mr. Bull: Perhaps my hon. Friend will afford us another opportunity of an hour's speech from him so that he might, perhaps, explain himself. Both the Egyptian Government and the people of Egypt have already made vast sums of money out of our war effort, and I seriously submit that something might be said to them so that they might be content with a little less profit. Having said that, the hon. Member for Ipswich will no doubt be aware that I shall not last long in what I am about to say. Ever since the Western Desert Campaign, I have been rather worried and wondering if by any chance we would ever get a tank big and strong enough, both as to armour and gun, to take on the big German tank.

4.20 p.m.

Major Kimball: I wish to raise a matter which concerns our present-day Army, and particularly those serving in the B.L.A. In common with many other Members of the House, I have received letters from members of the B.L.A. which very often contain "grouses," and one of them is with regard to the quality of the tobacco supplied by N.A.A.F.I. I took occasion in December to put one or two Questions to the

Secretary of State asking if he was aware of this grievance. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that he was not aware of the grievance and that he did not think that the supplies of pipe tobacco were insufficient or of poor quality. Subsequently I asked him to supply a list, and, in answer to another Question, he provided a list of the tobaccos which were alleged to be available, and which would have been very creditable to any large tobacconist's shop. Unfortunately, on making inquiries from various friends, I found that, although that list of tobaccos might be available in this country, in fact these particular brands did not reach the troops in the B.L.A. The great complaint is that the very few brands which are available are of very poor quality and are not popular. It is not fair to judge the demand for these tobaccos by the quantities consumed, because the quality is such that most men, if they can afford it, have tobacco posted out to them. It is not fair to say that transport difficulties are responsible, because, as has been pointed out by my correspondents, the inferior and unpopular brands arrive with the regularity of clockwork. Last week I was given a small sample of one of the issue tobaccos which has the resounding name of somebody's Cut Golden Bar. As a tobacco it is miserable; as a smoke screen it might be of some service to the Army. I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to look into this grievance, and I would ask him if I might send him a sample of this tobacco.

4.23 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I want to follow the speech of the hon. Baronet who represents North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam), and who spoke of postwar service, and to tell the House the views of certain of the rank and file of the Army as I knew them, although I am afraid that was some nine months ago. I tried to find them out before I left my unit, because I thought they would be of interest and value later. It was done through the ordinary methods of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs. I think the men's reactions could be taken as average ones compared to those of men of other units. In the first place, they all feel that, if another war is to be avoided, our Armed Forces have got to be a great deal stronger than they were


between the Great War and this one. They feel, further, that this cannot be achieved without some form of compulsory service. They realise that probably all young men would have to do a period of between one year and two years—I think a year or 18 months is the most usual estimate—of service before they went into their civilian occupations. They believe that some system rather like that of the Militia Act, which came into force six months before the war, will be necessary to meet the case. They were also of opinion that the Regular Army will have to be larger and that it could be sufficiently recruited if the conditions of service were improved, and if all the young men of the country had the chance of seeing what service in the Army under good conditions could be, as these men were doing under the Militia Act. I think it might be of interest for the House to know that, less than a year ago, that was the opinion of a good many British soldiers. I realise that directly one leaves the Service one gets out of touch, and that their reactions may have changed, and so I say that with full diffidence.
Might I add one thing as an old Territorial soldier, and say that I would like to see the Territorial Army re-formed after the war, although I realise there may be all sorts of difficulties. I would say that, during those rather weary years between the wars, in order to keep the Territorial Army going we had to do a great deal of work that was not strictly military. It was really more a sort of entertaining in order to get recruits in those years of trying to make bricks without straw. Our two greatest difficulties in the Territorial Army were, first, lack of basic training, and, second, lack of recruits. I believe that both these difficulties would have been solved by the Act passed just before the war—the Militia Act. If we had not had the war, immense changes would have taken place in the Territorial Army, and it might have had its basic training, and might have had officers chosen from amongst those who have had this basic training. It might also have had longer training and would not have been short of recruits.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the point raised by the hon. Member for

Enfield (Mr. Bull)—the point of profiteering at the expense of the British soldier. The hon. Member spoke of the countries he knew—Egypt, North Africa and Italy. I want to speak of the country I did know, India. The Secretary of State has a certain knowledge of that country but I think that probably the House—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am afraid the hon. Member cannot say very much about India.

Sir S. Reed: It was only on the general question of profiteering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That makes it worse. We cannot discuss the general question of profiteering here. We can only deal with Army matters.

Sir S. Reed: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and will not attempt to put the point.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I rise to put in a warning to the House against some of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. I hope that, on this occasion at least, the troops in the field will not have these speeches brought to their notice; otherwise, it is probably going to have a most pessimistic effect on the morale of the Army, because some of the speeches would give the impression that the House of Commons, even before this war is brought to a conclusion, is engaged in making preparations for a conscript Army for some future war. I notice that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam), who has just gone out, could not understand what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said. Unfortunately, we understood what the hon. Baronet said. What he said was that he hoped we were going to set about creating an Army in the future based upon the traditions of the past. Those of us who went through the terrible years of 1939, 1940 and 1941 in this House, when we met disaster after disaster, not owing to the absence of effective military preparation after the war but owing to the stupidity of the War Office generally, hope to goodness that we shall never organise another Army on the basis of the traditions of the past. Those traditions let us down in a most hopeless fashion at that time, as everyone in this House knows


full well. The assumption that we shall make preparations almost immediately for another war machine assumes, in its turn, that all the attempts we are now trying to make to organise a system of collective security are bound to fail.
After the last war there was one assumption made which was perfectly sound, and that was that the preparations of the British Government should be based upon the assumption that we should not face a major war within ten years. I remember the present Prime Minister coming down to the House and telling us that that was the assumption that governed every plan of all the Services. Apparently even that limited optimism is now to be foregone, and we are to base our plans in the future upon the possibility of an immediate war. The advocates of a strong Army come along on these occasions and advocate the claims of the Army. When we come to the Navy Estimates, the naval experts will advocate the claims of the Navy. When we come to the Air Force, the air experts will advocate the claims of the Air Force. Not one of these optimistic gentlemen ever considers what will be the economic situation of this country if we are to base our plans upon a great Army, a great Navy and a great Air Force, and depend upon that war machine for the defence of these Islands and the British Empire.
The fact is that this country could not conceivably sustain a war machine so large as to find a sense of security behind it. Really, we ought now at this time of the day to be getting a little more realism into our discussion of war preparations. We will be able after the war to rest secure not behind the size of the war machine but behind the wisdom of our international policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why is that?"] I do not know. How can I tell? But is my hon. Friend going to base the preparations for our war machine upon the assumption of no international system of security? If that is so, the sky is the limit.
Let me put one or two questions to my hon. Friends Who have talked so glibly about this matter this afternoon. All these experts, to whom I have listened in the House now for so many years, and who know so little about what they are talking, will they feel confidence in the size of the Russian Armies? If the

Russian Armies are greater, will we feel more secure because the Russian Armies are great? If the American Armies are great, will we feel more secure in the size of the American Army? Will America feel secure in the size of Russia? Will Russia feel secure in the size of America? Will Great Britain feel more secure in the size of Poland? If each nation in its turn tries to arrive at feelings of security behind the size of other nations' armaments, then obviously we do not need any at all, because the only possibilities of war—the Prime Minister has told us and the British Government have already made it perfectly clear—come from the possible aggressions of the four great Powers. Yet neither one of those four great Powers will feel secure because of the size of the armaments of the others. Each will feel insecure because of the size of the others' armaments unless we achieve a foreign policy wise enough to bind all those war machines into a security system. If we can achieve a policy of that sort—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must not go into questions of foreign policy on these Estimates.

Mr. Bevan: But with all due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am bound to say that before you arrived speeches were made by hon. Members on the other side, the basic assumption of which was that we were caught napping this time because we were not strong enough—which was one of the silliest statements ever made in British politics—and that therefore in the future we must, in the case of the Army, be strong to meet the possibilities of the future.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can speak on the need for a strong Army, but foreign policy is going too far. I did not stop the hon. Gentleman going a certain way, but obviously we cannot make this into a Foreign Office Debate.

Mr. Bevan: I have not the least intention of discussing foreign policy, but I am entitled, I think, to call attention to the assumptions behind the speeches which have been made to-day and the other day. What I am pointing out is that hon. Members have been arguing in the course of these Debates that we ought to base our sense of security in the future upon an expansion of the British Army. I am


denying that behind that expansion any sense of security can be found. On the contrary I am asserting that behind an expanding war machine in Great Britain a mounting sense of insecurity will be created and an intolerable burden placed on a nation of between 46,000,000 and 50,000,000, with a white population in the British Empire of less than 70,000,000. To think that we can possibly build up an Army, in competition with 140,000,000 in America, with 200,000,000 in Russia, behind which we can ever hope to feel any sense of security is surely so silly that grown-up people ought not to indulge in it any more. What we must strive for—and that, I agree, I cannot enter into—is to establish an international system so strong, so co-operative, that the great nations composing it can think in terms of a progressive reduction and contraction of their war machine, and therefore find a sense of security behind international co-operation and not behind the steel walls that we are continually talking about today.
I do really hope that we shall not have very much more of that. It is all based upon the notion which the Conservative Party are trying to spread throughout the country that we were landed in this war because we had not prepared for it well enough beforehand. We were landed in this not because we were too weak, but because they were too stupid.

Major Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but surely—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot in any way discuss the stupidity of the various parties.

Mr. Bellenģer: No, the Conservative Party.

Mr. Bevan: I was not going to discuss it; it is so self-evident—

Mr. Bellģnger: That it is beyond discussion.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) made some very serious allegations in the course of his speech the other day. Among the allegations was that a directive had been sent out, I think to the Middle Eastern Command, that hon. Members of this House who happened to be addressing

troops should first of all provide the commanding officers with a written script of what they proposed to say. I want to know from the Secretary of State for War whether that is correct. I have not any personal interest in this matter at all, because I have never been invited to address the troops.

Miss Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me for just one moment because I may be able to clear up the point? I addressed several parties of troops in the Middle Eastern Pay Force and I was not asked to supply any script at all.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Lady thinks she is clearing up the matter. I should have thought that what she was doing was importing a whole torpedo-load of prejudice. Of course she would not be asked to provide her script beforehand. The question I asked—and the difficulty with my hon. Friend is that she always has such an oblique mind about these matters—was whether a directive has been sent out to that effect. I am not talking about when she was out there, I am speaking about the period when the hon. Member for Ipswich was out there. I asked whether it is the case that someone in the War Office, either on his own responsibility or on the responsibility of the Government or the Secretary of State for War, has sent out a directive that Commanders-in-Chief are entitled to receive the script of the speeches that hon. Members of this House may make to the troops. I am not satisfied to know that all hon. Members are not asked to supply their scripts. I know there are a large number who can be relied upon to speak with the utmost innocuousness as well as boredom to the troops. It is not the non-controversionalist, it is the controversionalist; it is not the people who are known to be traditionalists, who are known to be 100 per cent. supporters. They are all right. We know beforehand what they will say, but I hope that no hon. Member of this House will assert that they are more entitled to talk freely to the troops than I am.

Squadron-Leader Fleminģ: It depends what is being talked about.

Mr. Bevan: It does not. And I would tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman this—

Petty Officer Alan Herbert: What about Greece?

Mr. Bevan: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned that, because it enables me to say something which I did not intend to say.

Major Studholme: Better go and talk to the troops there.

Mr. Bevan: And now the hon. Members can have it, and I hope they will like it when they get it. We have had in the Press and in this House references made to the statements of troops in Greece. In fact, Sir Walter Citrine made a broadcast in which he spoke about the conversations he had with members of the Forces in Greece. It is well known in the Army and in the other Services that if you make statements and write letters which are favourable to the Government, you get every publicity for them; if you make statements which are critical of the Government, you will be posted to another station. I can provide the House with letters from officers in the Army, in the Air Force and in the Navy that have been censored by the unit censor, and the men posted to other stations because they have written private letters criticising the conduct of the Government. It is really the most humbugging kind of propaganda to come to this House and give us the evidence of serving soldiers. Serving soldiers know very well that their chances of promotion, that their chances even of remaining where they are, disappear if they give evidence hostile to the policies of the Government.

Colonel Clarke: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that that was taken with the utmost fairness, and that the men will welcome the fact that it is "put over" in this country. They knew it was going to be done, they wanted it "put over," and it was taken with the utmost fairness.

Mr. Bevan: What is put over? What is my hon. and gallant Friend talking about?

Colonel Clarke: "Put over" is a slang expression which means "to be given publicity."

Mr. Bevan: To what?

Colonel Clarke: That they felt conscription would be necessary after the war.

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry but this is the direct consequence of boring the House. My hon. and gallant Friend must have gone to sleep. I was dealing at the moment with the interruption concerning the expressions of soldiers about the policies of the Government in Greece.

Colonel Clarke: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman was looking at me.

Mr. Bevan: I was pointing out that that evidence is worthless because the opposite evidence cannot be used, although I am perfectly prepared to give to certain hon. Members and to the Secretary of State for War concrete evidence of where Servicemen have been victimised for expressing in private letters policies hostile to the Government. Everyone knows that, and everyone in the House knows it well. In those circumstances, what justification have they for telling us about what serving soldiers are saying in Greece?
In any case, soldiers engaged in actual operations are the very last witnesses whose word ought to be taken into account. They have had their friends killed and wounded, and they are not in a fit state of mind to give evidence as to the politics of the enemy. You would not take evidence from the family of a murdered man as to the character of the murderer. Neither would you, if you were judicially minded and wished to have a proper and objective understanding of what is happening, take the evidence of troops engaged in warfare as to the politics in Greece. What nonsense.
Hon. Members opposite know very well that they are doing this to import the utmost political prejudice into the matter. Sir Walter Citrine did neither the British Army, the Government nor the British public justice in making the broadcast he did; in fact, he would not have been sent out to Greece unless the Government knew that he could be relied upon to say exactly what he did say. He did the same thing over Finland. I want the Secretary of State, in his reply—because he did not reply the other day—to say whether it is a fact that the speeches of hon. Members to troops are censored. I have been invited to address a rehabilitation centre hi one of the Services. I do not know whether that prohibition applies, and I want to know beforehand.

Sir J. Griģģ: Which Service?

Mr. Bevan: The Royal Air Force. I went, the other day, to address an A.A. Battery in London. I spoke frankly, and I thought the men were fine chaps. I did not notice that they resented what I was saying, although some of them disagreed. I would be very distressed to learn that if I am asked to talk to Servicemen I should have to look over my shoulder all the time. I certainly would not address them at all if I was told that I had to write out what I was going to say, submit it to the commanding officer, and get his approval before I said it. That is an appalling situation.
Finally, I want to say this to hon. Members opposite; they should remember that a large number of members of the Forces, particularly the privates, have some association with us. They are miners, steel workers, agricultural labourers and engineers, and they have slightly more identification with us—I put it no higher than that—than with the point of view of hon. Members opposite.

Squadron-Leader Fleminģ: Is the hon. Member speaking as a trade unionist?

Mr. Bevan: A man who is conscripted in this war does not cease his civilian interests and preoccupations because he is serving in the Forces.

Squadron-Leader Fleminģ: When the hon. Member said "with us," did he mean that he was speaking as a Member of Parliament, or as a trade unionist?

Mr. Bevan: I am talking about myself as the representative of a constituency from which a large number of steel workers, engineers and miners have gone into the Forces. When the Election comes the arbitration of the Election will decide the point. I have a much closer identification with serving men from my constituency than hon. Members opposite. When it comes to a question of who would be the most popular speakers we have no reason to be afraid of any plebiscite of the Services in that matter. We know that these proscriptions are imposed in order to secure an unlimited opportunity for hon. Members opposite to talk their "blimpery" to the troops. We want to know from the Minister whether these instructions have been sent out and, if so, whether he proposes immediately to withdraw them.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I intervene for only a few minutes in this Debate partly because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and partly because I would like to pay a tribute to the Army education scheme. I apologise to the Minister for not being present when he made his original speech, but it happened that at that time I was on a visit to Brussels, and I would like to tell the Minister that the conditions of welfare I saw there are such that they can never have been bettered for the British troops. It is so different from anything we remember in the last war, and I would like to pay a tribute to those responsible for making the arrangements. I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale with some interest, because I have spoken scores of times to different units, usually by invitation, and I have never been asked to supply a script. I do not quite know what the rule is, and I would he grateful for information as to whether there is anything in this allegation.
In the Army as I have seen it from outside during this war, and especially more recently, under the guidance of Mr. Philip Morris, there has been something quite new in education and training. Whatever our views may be about conscription after the war, I agree that if we are to relate commitments to strength we must think the matter out more clearly than we did in the past. But that enters the field of foreign policy, and I will not go into that question now. In the field of education it seems to me that what has been experienced at places like Wakefield, Colig Harlech and Preston, where thousands of officers and men have been through courses, shows that there has been worked out perhaps a new technique in the science of training. It is also true that in young soldiers' battalions, especially during the last few years, the same thing has been evident. I read with interest the Financial Secretary's remarks about post-war schemes, and I would like to make this suggestion: Would it be possible for the Army—it could also apply to the other Services—to collect the best experience which has been gained in this war in the field of technical training as well as general training, because I believe that the collection of such information would be extremely valuable to our


post-war considerations? Not only that, but when one talks of conscription and National Service I do not know whether anyone has any idea of what should be the content of that service. It is not necessarily going to be anything like prewar suggestions, even if it is modelled on the Swiss system. I think there is enough material which, if it could be collected and sifted, would be of great value.
May I recall this little incident from earlier days? It happened in the last war that we had a group, of which I was leader, called "the Blighty League," meeting at Harfleur Base Camp, whose members were determined to come back and do something in this country. We were full of high hopes. There was an attempt to suppress a certain amount of discussion, and the only effect of that was to make us more keen than ever to get on with the job. What he hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) said the other day worries me a bit, if it is all true. It seemed to me somewhat alarming. I suggest that the utmost freedom should be given, and that in the "Formation Colleges," to which the Financial Secretary referred, and also in our postwar schemes, the vocational element should be fully taken into account. Men are very anxious to make their training directly related to the job they want to pursue when they re-enter civil life. It is not enough to leave the matter to the Ministry of Labour, although that is a technical point and I will not pursue it now.

4.55 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I make no apology for speaking in this Debate at this late hour 'because I have not spoken in any of the Debates on the Service Estimates for two years, although I have had wide experience of military operations. I think I am the only Member of the House who was twice, on manoeuvres, attached to headquarters staff so long ago as 1906. I rise for the purpose of saying a few words in praise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the War Office. Very properly, both on this stage and on the previous stage of these Army Estimates, right hon. and hon. Members, as is their undoubted right, have raised certain points affecting the personality of the soldiers, questions like preparation for civilian life and the

like. This would not be a proper deliberative assembly if that was not so. While I disagree almost in toto with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said, this House of Commons would be an ill place if Members were not allowed to put their point of view. I do not want to criticise the House, but questions of whether Private Jones should get is. 2d. or 1s. 1d., or whether Private Brown ought to be prepared for civil life, are infinitely smaller than the fact that in this war we have succeeded in building up the greatest and best British Army we have ever seen. That is a big question, and one which is much more important—if I do not appear to be a "blimp"—than the welfare of Private Robinson.
A word of praise in due to the War Office, that much abused assembly, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think we have done more in that respect than any other country. This House—especially individual Members—is prone to forget the attitude which was taken up in the past. I remember all the nonsense talked outside, which was a pale reflection of what was said in this House, about "spit and polish." It was said that it was wrong to make a citizen soldier into a soldier, that he ought to be treated as a bright blue-eyed boy and patted on the back. The only way to turn a citizen into a member of the Regular Army is by "spit and polish" [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Field-Marshal Montgomery."] My hon. Friend had better not tell Field-Marshal Montgomery to his face that he does not believe in battalion discipline. There is no man in the Army who believes in it more. Let it be remembered that the Brigade of Guards, who are always keen on "spit and polish," have not least contributed to our successes in this war. We have not had a word of apology for all the complaints in the past about how our Army was wasting its time on "spit and polish." It is high time that Members of this House, especially the civilian Members of this war and the last, paid some tribute to the Army and its fighting qualities, and to my right lion. Friend and to the War Office. I think they have done a remarkably good job, which reflects the greatest credit upon them—

Mr. Bevan: I think it is rather intolerable that we should be reproached for


not having prefaced our remarks by paying tributes to the Army. It would lengthen our speeches enormously. This is a controversial Chamber, and we are supposed to address our remarks to points of difference and not points of agreement. If we are to be reproached in this way, I shall prepare a standard form of preamble—which I will read out every time I make a speech—of praise for everyone deserving praise in order to protect myself from the Noble Lord's reproaches.

Earl Winterton: That was a most courteous interruption and I have no objection to it. The hon. Member is entitled to his point of view, and I know he will not be offended when I say that I infinitely prefer the soldier to the civilian. I am certain that he will not object to my personal preference, because no one is more inclined to share his view than I that we have a perfect right to put our own points of view. That is why I have paid a tribute to those whom I still regard as my old colleagues, and I am sure the hon. Member will not object. I think the greatest asset of my right hon. Friend opposite, which I share with him in my humble life, is that he and I have suffered fools as ungladly as we could.

5.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): I do not know that I was ever more tempted to follow immediately upon a speaker's last remark, but it is a temptation that I had better resist. I will deal with some of the points of detail which have been raised, in the main, in a humdrum uncontroversial way. First, let me take the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). I apologise for not having been in my place when he began his speech, but I think I am sufficiently informed of the purport of it. It was that there has been serious inefficiency and lack of imagination in that part of the Army medical services dealing with medical stores, and that that could be attributed to a lack of officer pharmacists. In the first place, I do not think it is true that there are no officer pharmacists. The organisation for the supply of medical and surgical stores is almost entirely officered by quartermasters of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and most of these have the Army dispensary qualification, and many are pharmacists. The number of pharmacists who are

being commissioned as quartermasters from the Royal Army Medical Corps has increased, and there are two employed as technical assistants in the Army Medical Directorate. Apart from that, judging by results, I think there has never been a great war in which so little complaint has been made of the Army medical services and so much praise has been given them. I do not think there can be any doubt that they have stood up to five and a half years of war in a manner beyond praise.
Perhaps my hon. Friend means that what is required is a separate pharmaceutical service, with its hierarchy of other ranks and officers. If that is what he means I do not think I agree with him, but, as he suggested, it is a matter that can be examined in the light of his speech and various memoranda that he has furnished to the War Office in connection with the studies that are going on as to the structure of the post-war Army. In the meantime I really cannot accept any suggestion that the Army medical service is a second rate service. I agree much more with the opinion which the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) expressed on Tuesday.

Mr. Linstead: I was rather careful to distinguish between the medical and the surgical side of the R.A.M.C., in which I agreed with the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for North Islington. I limited my remarks to the equipment side.

Sir J. Griģģ: I would not agree with my hon. Friend even there, as I maintain that in the main we are doing what he advocates, unless he is advocating a pharmaceutical service quite separate from the Army medical service.

Mr. Bevan: In this examination of the medical services in the future, will note be taken of representations that have been made to the War Office by hon. Members concerning physiotherapy?

Sir J. Griģģ: On that question my position is very much the same as about a separate pharmaceutical service. I am opposed to the claims that have been made. I do not think they have made out a case. On the other hand, this is a matter that can be considered in relation to the whole general range of problems connected with the post-war Army.
Now I come to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I understand that he has to catch a train so that, if he departs, it will be clearly understood that there is no question of incivility. I should like to remove a certain misunderstanding which he appears to entertain about my remarks the other night, or rather early in the morning. I did not in the least take umbrage at questions being raised, or at my being bombarded on Tuesdays. What I said was that on this annual occasion, when we talk of the Army as a whole, the message that the House might wish to send out to the Army was one of praise and gratitude. My complaint, if complaint it was, was not that I had to spend a large part of my time answering questions of detail, but that those questions, on this particular occasion, might have been accompanied with a greater measure of praise and support and recognition of what the Army had done and suffered in the last years.
Several Members have raised again the question asked by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) about certain instructions which he said were given by the Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East. I understand that he has written me a letter, though it has not yet been shown to me, about what he considers a similar order in one of the commands in this country. I can give the House an absolute and categorical assurance that no such instructions on the subject have been issued by me or by the War Office. Beyond that I know nothing, but I will certainly inquire and let the hon. Member know when I am ready to answer a question on the subject straightforwardly, and with as little controversy as may be appropriate. In the meantime, hon. Members have, no doubt, seen an answer given by the Prime Minister on this question yesterday. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asked the Prime Minister:
if he is aware that there is doubt about the position of Members of Parliament who are given permission to visit the war fronts overseas in regard to their rights of addressing the troops; and will he make a statement on the procedure to which Members are expected to conform.

THE PRIME MINISTER: I hardly think it necessary for me to suggest how Members of Parliament should comport themselves. I should suppose that a visiting Member of Parliament would only address troops on authorised occasions, and when doing so that he would refrain from taking advantage of the opportunity to further purely party

interests or to express contentious views likely to introduce an element of discord among men who are fighting under military discipline, and perhaps likely to be engaged at short notice with the enemy."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th March, 1945: Vol. 409, c. 223.]

This is the gospel on the subject. In the meantime all I can say is that I will inquire into the two specific cases which the hon. Member for Ipswich has brought to my notice.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal also with the point about the requests from the Army educational authorities to have representative speakers from all parties?

Sir J. Griģģ: Does the hon. Member mean Members of Parliament?

Mr. Stokes: No, political speakers representative of all parties.

Sir J. Griģģ: Is the hon. Member talking of the Middle East?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Sir J. Griģģ: The only thing that has come to my knowledge is a request from there that lecturers on all sorts of subjects of general interest, people who are undoubted authorities on their subjects, should be sent out in considerable numbers to lecture to the troops. That is being done.

Mr. Bellenģer: When I was in Italy L was told by a senior officer that he had asked for me personally—that I should be allowed to go out. My hon. Friends were not there when he told me this, and that is probably why he did so. He asked that I should be allowed to lecture to the troops, but the request was refused because he said it was felt that no political speakers, or Members having political associations, should be asked.

Sir J. Griģģ: That again is, I regret, not within my personal knowledge. The hon. Member complained that I had not answered the question of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who, I understand, said that the facts I gave in an answer some days earlier were inaccurate. I have tried to verify the facts. As far as my present information goes, my answer was accurate. Members can put Questions down on Tuesdays. This business of challenging information without giving notice is a matter that I cannot be expected to deal with at the time without further inquiry.
I dealt with the question of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) in his absence. I was accused of discourtesy for not being ready to answer his question.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Who accused the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is what I understood from the hon. Member for Basset-law. I explained at the time that I had not got the facts, but that I would go into the question and give an answer as soon as I knew the facts. There is nothing that I would wish less than to be discourteous to any hon. Member, particularly over a case of such tragic import.
I come now to the question of the postwar Army. I am afraid that I shall not satisfy the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who made it clear that he was not in favour of compulsory service. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made the same point. May I say in passing about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that I really thought myself back 25 years ago after the last war when I heard the arguments he was using, such as, "If you want war, prepare for war," and all that sort of thing. I should have thought that those arguments had been absolutely and crushingly disproved in the last five years. The only other comment I would make to him is that he might remember that, for a year in this war, we were absolutely alone, and that, unless we are prepared on occasion to stand alone, we shall not survive.

Mr. A. Bevan: I do not believe that at all. Are you going to have an Army on a professional basis, and how big is it going to be?

Sir J. Griģģ: It stood alone anyhow, and with not an awful lot of help from the hon. Member from Ebbw Vale.

Mr. A. Bevan: That is a lie. The right hon. Gentleman ought to apologise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Member must not use that expression, and I must ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Bevan: Then I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the word "lie" is the word I am objecting to, and the hon. Member must withdraw—

Mr. Bevan: I withdraw but—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw without any sideline or qualification.

Mr. Bevan: If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will do so, but I also insist that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a matter of bargaining or argument—

Mr. Bevan: I have withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "lie" before we deal with the other matter.

Mr. Bevan: I have already done it three times. Shall I withdraw it four times? Must I withdraw again a fifth time? I am asking that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the statement he made which led to my interpolation—a very unworthy statement to make.

Sir J. Griģģ: All I said was that I did not think the British Army had received a great deal of help from the hon. Member. If the hon. Member thinks that I am wrong over that, perhaps he would like to submit a list of his services.

Mr. Bevan: I have not, of course, done what a number of other hon. Members have done during this war; I did not join the Army and draw two salaries for five years. I did my duty as a Member of this Parliament and defended my constituents.

Sir J. Griģģ: I think we had better leave it at that.

An Hon. Member: They were a lot of "base wallahs" and did not go into the firing line.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We really cannot deal with that under this Vote.

Sir J. Griģģ: Let me get back to the subject of the post-war Army and the remarks of the hon. Member for Basset-law. Quite clearly, he is not in favour of compulsory service. What is clear to everybody, I think, is that the question of compulsory service or no compulsory service is a very material element of the problem of the post-war Army. As I said the other evening, everyone will admit that that is a decision of major importance. When that decision has been made, the War Office are perfectly ready to


produce a complete scheme for the postwar Army for the consideration of my colleagues. A great deal of work has been done on this on a variety of hypotheses, but I do not think it is in the least possible for me to make declarations on any part of the subject before the major decision has been taken. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say that I have now read his speech in cold print, and I still think that some of it was very regrettable. Some of it seemed to me to convey an impression—I will not say it was calculated to do so, but it was capable of conveying the impression—which I think he would wish an early opportunity of removing. This impression can be interpreted as a strong suggestion to soldiers that they should refuse to go to the Far East and that, if they did refuse to do so, it would be right for them to refuse.

Mr. Bellenģer: I am really surprised at my right hon. Friend. He was present the other night when the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made the same charge. I got up and denied that straight away, and the hon. Member accepted my explanation. The right hon. Gentleman was there at the same time, and yet he has the audacity and the discourtesy—and he does me no justice—to come and repeat the same charge to-day.

Sir J. Griģģ: I think the matter is so important that it is extremely desirable that the hon. Member's denial should be repeated. I have read his remarks in cold print, and they seem to me more capable of carrying that meaning than any other meaning. I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that his second denial will strengthen the effect of the first.
The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) raised some points about profiteering abroad. I think it is reasonably true to say that in most countries abroad—I am not talking about India, where the canteen service comes under the Government of India and not N.A.A.F.I.—but in most places abroad we endeavour to provide the N.A.A.F.I. a sufficiently wide range of goods. It is not necessary for people to go to the bazaar or the local shops to buy goods. It is undesirable in the liberated countries for troops to buy goods because there is only a limited supply of goods for the local population. There are hostels and entertainments provided for them on a large and generous

scale. If in places like Egypt they do not want to buy expensive goods in the bazaars they have their own remedy; they just do not buy them.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: In Egypt, notably, it is difficult for the soldier to buy anything, particularly if he wants to send presents home, without being charged exorbitantly. I believe that the problem has been solved in Italy by gift shops.

Sir J. Griģģ: Yes, the problem has been largely solved there in this way, and the gift shops in Naples and Rome are magnificent examples of this policy.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Are the gift shops in Egypt and the prices controlled in the same manner as the gift shops in Naples?

Sir J. Griģģ: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question about that. I cannot carry in my mind all the places where there are gift shops. I know there are some in liberated Europe and in Italy, but I will not commit myself off-hand to their being on the same scale.

Earl Winterton: It is contrary to the Egyptian Constitution. You could not do it in Egypt. [Interruption.]

Mr. Bellenģer: Let us hear the Minister.

Earl Winterton: If the Socialist Party would keep quiet we should be able to hear him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be best it all Members addressed the Chair. The Noble Lord is contributing with his interruptions.

Earl Winterton: The interruptions have mostly come from the rather heated hon. Members for Bassetlaw and Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: And others, too, I am afraid.

Mr. Bevan: If I described what I thought of the Noble Lord's interruption, I should have to withdraw again.

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Major Kimball) asked me to smoke a sample of pipe tobacco which had been sent from abroad. I have not the slightest desire to submit myself to any unnecessary pain, and


therefore I beg him not to send me the sample. If he will send me the places and units to which this particular infliction has been issued, I will investigate the matter and any other cases and places he has in mind. But I do not consider it as part of my duty to be the dog on which any particular poison is tried. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said a word in praise of welfare services in Brussels and of the Army Educational System, and he hoped we would collect the results of the work which had been done during the war for the benefit of the science and technique of education after the war. That is a suggestion I will certainly consider. What the hon. Member said gives me the opportunity of paying a tribute to the officers and directors of the Army Educational Service. They have done a great work over recent years and have a great work still to do in the release period. I think that under the new Director-General it is an extremely good service; we were very lucky to get Mr. Morris, and I was grateful to the Kent Education Authority for letting him come to us.
As I aroused some ire the other night by my remarks about the character of the Debate, perhaps I should make them again, but make them in a less controversial way, particularly as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) said a great deal in praise of the Army. What I was saying was not in the least that the work of the War Office or the Secretary of State should be praised, but that the troops need and deserve all the support that this House can give them, and that from this House, at least on this one occasion of the year, there should be as much as possible of praise, commendation, assurance and support in major matters and not solely in the smaller matters of administration.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to

REPORT [6th March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1945

Resolutions reported:

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

1. "That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1946."

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946."

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

Schedule



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
10
230,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: The Under-Secretary of State for Air, replying late last Tuesday week to the Debate on the Committee stage, had good reason for wanting to get away. He was good enough to write a letter to me asking me whether there were points in the speech to which I would like an answer. I only received the letter yesterday, and therefore I take this opportunity to repeat the two questions. I understand that the answers will be of interest to the public and to hon. Members. I have had a good deal of correspondence from the public on the matter. The Secretary of State


claims that we have complete air supremacy over Germany. The first question is: Why was it that so many of Runstedt's troops were able to cross the Rhine by barge and get to the East side of the river? The other question is: How, having regard to the tremendous bombing that we have carried out over Germany, for the last five years, is it possible for the German people to stand up to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the accuracy of the bombing and whether there has been considerable dispersal of population and of industry? Will he say whether a great deal of German industry has been put underground? Many people are asking such questions and it would be doing the public a great service if the right hon. Gentleman would give a reply.
I turn to the question of civil aviation, upon which we are to have a Debate next Tuesday on the Report stage of the Civil Estimates, when it will be impossible for hon. Members to indicate their attitude by a Division. Hon. Members may make speeches, and I am sure that they will do so from both sides of the House, some criticising the White Paper and others supporting its general findings and views. I understand that a definite Motion will be put down later on by His Majesty's Government—commending the White Paper to the House, I imagine—but that issue cannot be discussed next Tuesday. It may come on after Easter. In those circumstances, I want to say from these benches—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of a great number of my hon. Friends—that we do not: accept the contents of that White Paper. From our point of view, there has been a complete sell-out to interests that have been fiddling behind the scenes at the Government, ever since the future of civil aviation became a matter for discussion. I have heard speeches made by Noble Lords in another place, admitting frankly that they represented shipping or railway companies. It is completely deplorable that the Government have given way to pressure of that kind.
I am not going to say very much about B.O.A.C. this afternoon. Within its range it is doing a magnificent job of work. It is not a commercial enterprise in the ordinary sense of the word. It is under the direct instructions of the Secretary of State for Air and I do hot think

any judgment can possibly be come to between it and any other commercial enterprise, of which we have had knowledge in the past. However, from information I have, it appears that even B.O.A.C. do not know where they are in this new set-up. They, apparently, are to have a minority holding in the two enterprises in which they ought to have a majority holding. They have a majority holding, so far as the Empire and the North Atlantic routes are concerned, but for the South Atlantic, South American and European routes they seem to be put in the extraordinary position of being a minority shareholder. The Government are proposing to be a minority shareholder in two of the enterprises they have visualised as being set up to divide the rest of the air traffic between them.
I have taken a fairly prominent part in this House, with my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), in advocating what we on this side of the House believe is a proper policy for civil aviation. As a result of that, I have had repeated requests to address meetings outside this House. I make more or less the same speech on every occasion, because it is a very good speech. It puts the case fairly clearly in about half an hour. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is this it?"] No, this is not the speech. Hon. Members will hear it on Tuesday, if I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I find that the ordinary public are very interested and excited by the ideas that we put forward from these Benches representing our policy for the future of civil aviation. I have here a letter which I should like to read. I received it only this morning. It is from the secretary who convened a meeting which I addressed on Tuesday at lunch time. It says:
When I read the report of the Debate on civil aviation I could not help feeling that our choice of subject was peculiarly appropriate.
In other words, it is a subject which interests a great many people in this country. There was a short, half-hour meeting, with a kind of buffet lunch, and from 120 to 150 people turned up in their lunch hour to hear me put forth those views. He goes on:
I wish the trend of events was more along the lines of your talk, but I take hope from your final words that what is now being done is not necessarily final, and much may be re-


adjusted when the General Election makes it possible to replace men whose methods and ideas are outworn, with those whose outlook is more in keeping with a shrinking and war ravaged world.
That is a very clearly put statement. [Laughter.] I do not see anything to laugh at in that remark. The point is that the public are interested and angry at the present time with the policy that the Government are pursuing. If the hon. Member opposite goes back to North Hackney and tries to justify that policy on any platform in his constituency, he will find, if I go with him, that my view will be accepted and not his; and in any case they will probably deal with him at the next General Election, as I tried to do on three previous occasions.
The public are interested in this matter, and in all earnestness I would like to make this statement, because it is about time that something of this kind was said. We understand that we are to have an Act of Parliament to set up the Minister for Civil Aviation and his Department, but that has not come along at all yet, and I understand that so long as the B.O.A.C. Act is on the Statute Book, nothing can really be done. I think I can say—although I have not been authorised—on behalf of the Labour Party that when we form the Government after the next General Election, we are not going to follow the policy outlined in this White Paper. We would warn the shipping interests, the railway interests, and anybody who is foolish enough to subscribe capital to the new organisations that they propose to set up for the purpose of running civil aviation after the war, that they had better beware.
This is a matter on which we take a very strong stand indeed. It is only two days since the White Paper was issued, but yesterday, in the "Financial News," it was the main item. I can see what is going to happen very soon. The Government are frightened of vested interests, or even interests that want to become vested. I say, let them beware. Let would-be investors beware. Even if the companies are floated and the objects and memoranda arranged to allow them to run air routes, and even if they have got their capital together, let them be quite certain that they do so at their own risk. The Government will not last for ever. It has lasted a good deal too long as it is. I can assure hon. Members that in this

matter of the future of civil aviation lies the ability of mankind to work together, to co-ordinate and to co-operate, because it is a matter that is really and truly closely touching the peace of the world.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has raised points on which, he quite rightly says, the public are excited and are displaying great concern. I believe that the Minister has now been given an opportunity by him to reply on many important issues. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister another matter, in regard to which he made certain unwise remarks in this House, in relation to rocket sites in Holland. The public are interested in the use of words in this House and I believe it was unfortunate that the Secretary of State should suggest that we could not do certain things in Holland, either because of those sites being in congested areas, or because we might hit Dutch people, or hit certain buildings, or do damage in Holland, which would cause him a disturbance of mind and conscience.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Commander Brabner): Perhaps I might be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member here. What my right hon. Friend did say was that these attacks on sites in Holland would not be effective, not that we had any particular tenderness. Although the Dutch are our Allies, there was no question of our not doing things to those sites that we should do, when the people of London were being injured. We were doing everything we could to them, but our attacks were not carried out on a devastating scale, because it was felt that they would not be effective. We were not particularly concerned at the moment about injury to property, but we naturally took loss of life into account.

Mr. E. Walkden: I am sorry that have not by me the exact words that the right hon. Gentleman used, but if I delete the reference to property, perhaps I might associate my remarks only with persons; and I would make it clear that there has been considerable correspondence in national newspapers on the matter. There have been references in letters written here by constituents—not my own, but constituents of London Members, and in the South of England—about what I believe were the unfortunate words used by the Secretary of State.

5.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Perhaps the hon. Member will let me interrupt at this point in order to point out that he is being less than fair to me. I said two things. One was that attacks on a grand scale, obliteration attacks against towns and villages in Holland, would cause frightful loss of life which would affect my conscience, certainly, and I think the conscience of the House of Commons. I also said that the other great argument against such attacks was that they were bound to be ineffective, because the men who work these instruments would emerge from their shelters afterwards; they would come up and clear a space about 23 feet square, and carry on as though the attack had never taken place. May I say that the official newspaper of my hon. Friend's party treated me very fairly in this? They not only published both parts of my speech and both arguments, but when some correspondents wrote to that newspaper and drew attention only to the first part, about the loss of life which would be caused to the Dutch civilians, I am glad to say that that newspaper did, most fairly, point out that I had also indicated that the attacks would be ineffective.

Mr. E. Walliden: I have extracted now from the right hon. Gentleman a further explanation which will reassure the public, and of which I hope the newspapers will take particular note.

Dr. Russell Thomas: It is not a further explanation, but the same explanation.

Mr. Walkden: The hon. Member is accustomed to trotting out comments of all kinds when allegations are being answered, or explanations are being followed up in the way I am endeavouring to do to-day. If he will just allow these explanations to be given, if he will only be attentive and listen, I am sure he will receive some indication which will convince him that the public, the thinking public, are deeply concerned about the statement which the Minister has just made to the House. I hope the newspapers will take particular note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and that the unfortunate citizens in the areas concerned will be further reassured that in the matter of strategy nothing will be spared, so far as the R.A.F. are con-

cerned, in attacking these sites. I hope that wherever these rocket sites may be situated, whether in Holland or Germany, they will be winkled out with the greatest possible energy, and that we shall attack them, whatever the circumstances may be. I also hope that the "Daily Herald" will again take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

5.46 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I would like to raise the question of the warrant officer who has been promoted to officer rank in the R.A.F. Not a great many people are affected—probably some few thousands—but they do, at present, suffer considerably through certain anomalies. I have taken the opportunity of sending details of the anomalies to the Under-Secretary, and I would like to remind hon. Members of what the present position is. If a man was a warrant officer in the R.A.F. before the war, and he now holds officer rank, he is limited to a maximum pension of £317 a year. It does not matter whether he reaches the substantive rank of flight-lieutenant, squadron-leader, wing-commander, group-captain or air-commodore, he can still only get £317 a year. On the other hand, a group-captain, general duties, substantive rank, can, if he reaches his maximum pension, get£750 a year. That is a great difference. I am not asking that these ex-warrant officers should have the same pension, but I think that they ought to have a differentiation in the scale according to the rank they have reached. They not only have to serve a longer time in the R.A.F., due to the fact that, until they reach the rank of warrant officer, every year served only counts as half a year, which means that they have to stay in the R.A.F. a considerably longer time, and are a great deal older when they come out.
These men are the most loyal in the Service. They never say anything. Many of them started as Halton boys, and have been trained in all the technical knowledge of the R.A.F. When the war came they found themselves warrant officers. They did not want to take commissions, but they were urged to do so. It was necessary for the expansion of the Air Force that they should become officers. Until they reached the rank of squadron-leader they were not as well off as when


they were warrant officers. Many of these men now find themselves wing-commanders. They have had to improve their standards of life. They probably send their children to better schools and are living in larger houses. They are worried about what is to happen to them when the war ends. What is to be the policy of the Air Council? Are these men still to be employed or are they, because they have been promoted, to be offered warrant officer rank again or put out of the Service altogether? Their great fear is that of being put out of the Service altogether. In many cases they will have their families to educate. While in the Service they get family allowances, which are such a great help. I urge the Under-Secretary to give this matter sympathetic consideration and, at as early a date as possible, to make some statement which will help to allay the worry in these troubled minds.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: Can we be told anything further about Prestwick airport? I see a frown on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's brow. I am certain he is "fed-up" with this subject, but I give him, and the Government, and even the House, due warning that they will become even more "fed-up" with Scottish Members before we have done with them. I would not have troubled him on this occasion but for two reasons. I should think it inappropriate on Tuesday next to raise this subject, because we shall be dealing with the broader issue of the Government's policy in connection with civil aviation. The real necessity for questioning the Government further on this subject arises from what, I hope, I may describe, without disrespect, as the empty statement made this week in another place by the Minister responsible. He said there was a misapprehension; that a rumour had become current that the Government meant to close down Prestwick, and he said that they did not mean to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to agree with that statement. There is no concession in that, because the plain, blunt fact is that the Government cannot shut down Prestwick just now, because they cannot do without it.
It is making no concession to Scotland, nor giving any reassurance to Scottish

opinion which is disturbed on this subject, when the Minister says that the Government do not mean to shut down Prestwick. They must keep it open, they have no alternative. That is, substantially, the basis of the Scottish resentment on this subject. Scottish people know that Prestwick has, during these war years, met a national need which could not have been supplied in any other part of the Kingdom, and I think they feel that after their usefulness to the nation; commercial interests are now being interposed, and that Prestwick is to be relegated to a secondary, commercial airport. I should like an assurance, in terms of figures, that the money which is being spent on this North London airport is not being spent because of military or war aviation necessity. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that any substantial portion of this airport, on which public moneys are being spent, will be in operation for any substantial war purpose. It will be of great use commercially, and I am not, for a second, saying that we should be without it. But some consideration should be given to whether a proportion of this money might not have been spent more economically and more efficiently at Prestwick upon the post-war commercial extension, or ancillaries with which His Majesty's Government think a national terminus should be equipped. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us that the Government have taken their consideration a stage further. I hope that, without qualification, he will be able to pledge himself that in the Government's post-war organisation they mean Prestwick to remain a main terminus, secondary only to that of London. I will not pursue the subject of operation and manufacture further, but I give due warning that we shall pursue those two topics at a more suitable time.

5.55 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member opposite and all Scottish Members on their magnificent high-pressure salesmanship about Prestwick. I think it is premature. I do not see why the Air Ministry should be blackmailed by any body of people into saying that "This, and this only, will be the main airport for civilian traffic." The hon. Member indicates that he does not like the expression "blackmail," so I at once withdraw it and will say instead the energy and eloquence of the hon.


Member and his colleagues—and I myself, being Scottish by descent, have the profoundest sympathy with them—should not convince the right hon. Gentleman before he has had before him the whole facts of civil aviation which can hardly be the case before the war is over. Prestwick would not have been used as the main terminus for civilian air transport but for the fact that the main aerodromes in Northern Ireland had to be used for operational purposes. They are much nearer the Atlantic routes, but they could not be spared. Prestwick was available and it has a nice, sandy soil. It is all right for the present type of land aircraft that are used, the large four-engined machines, but it is perfectly apparent to anyone who looks to the future—and I am sorry to see there is not more vision about the hon. Member in regard to the air—it will not be long before trans-Atlantic machines will be larding on water.

Mr. McNeil: We have 20 miles of sheltered water.

Sir R. Ross: That is not so sheltered as inland water, and in Northern Ireland we happen to have the two largest lakes in the Kingdom. That is infinitely better than anything that can be found in the neighbourhood of Prestwick, though sea fishing would be an added attraction. It is clear that Northern Ireland has been highly developed aeronautically with a very large number of aerodromes that can be used for the dispersal of passengers who arrive, and it has the two largest inland sheets of water in the British Isles, which have also been very highly developed for national purposes, but cannot be spared for mere civilian traffic in war-time. I cannot embroider the subject too much, because we are still at war, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not approve of my going into details which would clearly show the great superiority of Northern Ireland as the main terminal, in contrast to anything in Scotland.
I wish again to address myself to a subject very dear to me, and with which all the House will cordially agree. I made a plea, a year ago, for a very small class of men who have done more to win this war than any other class. In fact, we have had that stated by the Prime Minister in an immortal phrase. I allude to the fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain. They are very few. There are fewer of

them to-day than when I spoke on this subject a year ago. There is no distinction, no decoration, by which anyone can see that a pilot was a fighter-pilot on that occasion. The gallant soldiers of the Eighth Army have, on the ribbon of their Africa Star, an "8." The gallant soldiers of the First Army also indicate the part they played in the victory in Africa by having a "1" upon their ribbon. But the fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain have nothing beyond the ordinary 1939–43 ribbon to show that they took part in that unique victory. It was fundamental. Had that victory not been achieved, there would have been no Alamein, there would probably have been no victory in Africa. The danger of defeat was never closer to this country than when that small band of fighter pilots and those bomber crews who were associated with them saved us from a disaster which this country has never suffered, and which, please God, she never will suffer.
I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to give me any reply to this matter, because it has been under consideration for a year, and it is mixed up with a lot of other matters. I would remind him that the Waterloo medal was given after even more profound consideration—50 years after the battle. That is a good deal too long. I cannot see why some little emblem, such as possibly the wings in miniature, to be worn on the ribbon of the 1939–43 Star, should not be given, to show what a unique achievement this was. I know that it is difficult to draw a line, because there are bound to be hard cases on both sides of it. It was once said, with great justice, that decorations descend impartially on the just and on the unjust, but surely it is easy for the Air Ministry to decide, substantially correctly, who were those airborne members of the Air Force who helped to win the Battle of Britain, and who should be given some distinctive medal, to show what the country owes them.

6.2 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I have joined in the Debate partly because I wish to take part in the auction for the future airport. We have had a bid from Scotland and a bid from Northern Ireland; would like to make a bid for my own constituency. We have everything convenient. We have a fine stretch of water, called the Solent. We


are already accustomed to deal with foreign nations, and I cannot imagine a better place than Southampton in which to erect the airport. As I understand that the matter will soon be out of my right hon. Friend's hands, I will make a first bid to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Civil Aviation, before he appears in the House. I will leave the matter at that. I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, apart from a few hon. Members, one of whom we have heard this afternoon, we are all completely behind him in his policy in regard to the rocket sites. He gave an explanation a few days ago, which must appeal to the humanitarian feelings of all of us. The Dutch are one of the bravest of our Allies, and it would horrify us all if we bombed their crowded villages, and perhaps did not destroy the rocket sites after all. The enemy on the sites would escape like rats underground, and we should not injure them, and then they would move elsewhere. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) should have put forward the argument which he did and that he should have complained because I uttered disapproval while he spoke. If I had fainted and collapsed it would not have been surprising.

Mr. E. Walkden: Why on earth does the hon. Member mutter at everybody who gets up, instead of asking Members to give way?

Dr. Thomas: I am sure the House would not wish me to answer that question. When I mutter or interject it is often for very good and sound reasons. As I said, if I had fainted and collapsed when listening to the hon. Member it would not have been surprising. Then I should not have been able to groan at all. I do not think that the SecretarY of State gave any further explanation to-night. That is what I muttered. The right hon. Gentleman had simply repeated what he said on a previous occasion. If the hon. Member for Doncaster will take more accurate notes in future, he will avoid making such a mistake as he made this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked the Secretary of State why the German bridges were not destroyed, and why the German people have not already collapsed under

this terrific onslaught. I do not think anybody in the country expects the R.A.F. to immobilise the whole German Army and to prevent them altogether from crossing the Rhine. I dare say there are good strategic reasons—I do not know. I do not think my right hon. Friend could give an explanation of why the German people have not collapsed, and I do not think the House would expect anyone to enter deeply into these matters. My right hon. Friend should leave the matter at that. Everybody is perfectly satisfied with the progress of the war at the present time, and with the great feats of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Bowles: Surely the Minister is quite capable of deciding whether he should answer my question or not? Surely he does not need any support from my hon. Friend?

Dr. Thomas: I quite agree that the Minister can answer these questions or not, but I am taking the opportunity of advising him not to, in case he falls into this trap. I am perfectly entitled to do that. I hope my remarks have impressed my right hon. Friend sufficiently, and that he will not take the course which my hon. Friend suggests. We are going to discuss civil aviation on Tuesday. My hon. Friend threatened some of us, who have a different point of view from his own. He said that this White Paper was giving special advantages to the shipping companies and the railway companies, who have been nibbling at it—as my hon. Friend expressed it—for a long time. Many of us take another view of the White Paper, and think that it is going much too far in the direction of Socialism. We shall probably have a very interesting time on Tuesday. When my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton left that subject he uttered a very ominous threat. He feared to complete it, although he apparently would have liked to do so. What he meant to say, I believe, was that those who subscribe capital to these companies were in grave danger, when a Government arose from the party to which he belongs—I will complete it for him—that that capital might be confiscated. Perhaps I had better not pursue this matter of civil aviation further: I think we can leave it until Tuesday. I want to end, as I began, not by pressing the claims of Southampton to be the air port of the future, but, as the one who interrupted the eloquent address of my


hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, to say that the reason I rose was that I am wholeheartily behind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in regard to his attitude towards the bombing of the rocket sites.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not need to tell the Minister that in the R.A.F. he has a wonderful body of men, worth watching over, caring for, and helping. I think he will realise that if the suggestion of policy that was made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was accepted there would be a wonderful opportunity not only for helping these men, as pilots and technicians and the rest, but for obtaining a degree of coordination between the R.A.F. and civil flying that would prevent, what a Member on the other side apparently feared, that at some moment many of these men, who have given such gallant service, will be left to their own resources, and possibly faced with great domestic difficulties. If we had such a policy as has been suggested in connection with civil aviation, the Minister could easily arrange at any time to get men transferred from his Service to that which is under the other Government Departments. But if he is going to hand over the control of civil aviation to such.a crowd as the White Paper suggests many of these lads, who have given such splendid service to the country, may be put off from active service in the R.A.F. and find that they have no future of any kind. If they get into the clutches of this organisation, they may find that it is simply exploiting them, and doing nothing to recognise the good service they have given to the country. Those who get the opportunity to speak on Tuesday should emphasise that this White Paper may be welcome to the shipping companies, from Southampton and other places, but may be a bad thing for these men, who have so gallantly served the country.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has gone out of the House. Might I say that Loch Lomond is big enough to hold the whole of Northern Ireland, let alone an airport? The danger of making Northern Ireland the air terminal is that, after so much money has been spent on it, Mr. de Valera and his colleagues might decide to blow away the partition and take the air

terminal. When Ireland is united and indivisible, we shall have no more say in what is going to happen in Northern Ireland. That may happen at any time. On the opposite side, the other day, Members were clamouring with the deepest fervour for freedom and independence. We might get freedom and independence for Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that question arises on the Air Estimates.

Mr. Gallacher: It was just to warn the House of the danger arising out of the suggestion of another hon. Member that we should make an air terminal in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Nuneaton drew attention to the fact that he was going about making a very good speech and that, as he made this very good speech, the utmost interest was being taken by the people of this country in the R.A.F. and also in the question of civil aviation. He said that the people as a whole are thinking of it very keenly. I believe that the interest that is being taken by the people off England and Wales in aviation in general is as nothing, compared to the interest that is being taken by Scotland on the question of aerodromes.
The whole Scottish people, every intelligent organisation and all the county councils and the burghs are interested in the question of Prestwick aerodrome. It is a token question. It represents for them, either treatment of Scotland similar to that which it received after the last war or a different treatment. We know that a big terminal is to be built in London. They say that they want another terminal to be at Prestwick. If they should close down the other terminal, some of the crowd who are always anxious to come in will be there ready to sustain some of the vested interests. This is a very serious matter, not only for Scotland but for the people of the country as a whole. In the Scottish Standing Committee on Tuesday I made reference, arising out of certain Amendments on the Hydro-Electric Bill, to the support that some of the Tories were giving to "scrounging capitalists," and this, to some extent, was taken up by one or two hon. Members who objected to the use of such a term.
The fact is we have to be on the watch all the time in connection with aviation.


Aviation in this country has been given a terrific acceleration through the war and through the accomplishments of the many young lads who have gone into the R.A.F., and through the efforts of scientists and technicians who have been brought in as a result of the war. When we have done all this, and developed it as a nation to this tremendous extent we have all these scroungers ready to come in and grab. We have developed this great force. One has only to look at some of 'the splendid periodicals, illustrated books and magazines which are issued in connection with the Air Force to see the amazing developments that have taken place, not through the efforts of some private individuals or private firms but through the direction of the nation as a whole. Particular firms have been used for building and so on, but all the drive and direction have come from the nation as a whole, and the great training and skill which have developed as a result of the training of these thousands of young men should not be thrown away or handed over to scroungers or mouchers. I felt yesterday when discussing that Bill that it was a mouchers' Bill. That is the position all the time.
If the Secretary of State for Air has any real respect for this magnificent Service which he represents in this House, and any regard for the splendid lads who have rendered such great service to the country, he cannot leave the aviation of this country or these young men, when they have finished with the Air Force, at the mercy of grasping shipowners or others. When he has built up such a magnificent force of machines and men, he should retain and develop it in the interests of the people as a whole.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Edģar Granville: I had intended to defend the Secretary of State for Air on the question of the bombing of the V.2 sites in Holland, to which he referred in his Estimates speech last week, which he said was inadequately reported in some newspapers. I feel that there is nothing now for me to say, because my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) has leapt to his feet and defended the Secretary of State nobly and well. I feel now something akin to sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E.

Walkden), who has almost precipitated the reunion of the Liberal Party and found it arrayed against him. Therefore, I would like to join in the geographical aspect of this Debate in the allocation of airports for post-war civil aviation. The claims of Prestwick have again been pressed and reference has been made to the possibilities of Northern Ireland. I make bold to ask, Is the Secretary of State disposed this evening to tell us something with regard to the development of the London airport? So far he has said very little about it, except in reply to questions, and no actual official information has been given as to whether the London airport is to be on a site on the Great West Road or elsewhere.
I would also like to ask the Minister whether he can give us any indication as a pointer to the future of the sort of cost in which the State will be involved for land known as Heath Row and its environs. We have had all sorts of calculations as to the time that will be taken to produce aircraft when we have to fly air routes at the end of the war. But can the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication when this airport will be finished to take its place as World Number One Air Terminus? Then there is another aspect of this. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to indicate those aerodromes which are likely to be kept by the Royal Air Force after the war? I understand that all the aerodromes are vested in the Secretary of State for Air, and I have particularly in mind the aerodromes of East Anglia used by Allied Forces. A great deal of this land was taken from agriculture, which hopes to have it returned one day. Can he give to those who are and will be interested in the future and development of agriculture, including the war agricultural executive committees or those who take their place, an indication of the aerodromes or air stations which are likely to be kept on and of those which will be returned to the purposes for which they were originally used. This is important to many patriotic individuals who were dispossessed at short notice.
I would also like to soften his heart on a question I raised on the Adjournment some months ago—the question of the single or observer's wing of the old Royal Flying Corps. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary for Air replied to that Debate, and the posi-


tion at the present time is that a member of the Royal Flying Corps who is to-day wearing Army uniform or Royal Air Force blue can wear his wings provided they are pilot wings. He is not entitled to wear on Army uniform the single observer's wing of the Royal Flying Corps which he won in the last war. I would emphasise that the single observer's wing was not given for a certain number of hours in the air or for training. It was won, I believe, by 30 operations over enemy territory. It was an award in every sense of the word. There are not many of this gallant band left to-day who were entitled to wear this single observer's wing, and they are precluded from now doing so by an Order in Council dating back to 1941. It is no good my tackling the Secretary of State for War on this, although the men who wear Army uniform are affected. What I have to do is to soften the heart of the Air Ministry and persuade the Secretary of State for Air, out of consideration for these very few survivors of the gallant band of Royal Flying Corps Observers in the last war, to allow them to continue to wear the insignia of the single wing.

Mr. Beverly Baxter (Wood Green): Would the hon. Gentleman refresh the memory of the House on the reply given to his case on the Adjournment? It is a most interesting point, and one wonders why the Air Ministry could possibly discriminate between both wings and one wing.

Mr. Granville: I believe the position was that the Order in Council of 1941 enabled the holders of the Royal Flying Corps observer's wing in the last war to wear wings on Royal Air Force uniform or khaki uniform, but a distinction was made which precluded the wearing of the observer's wing. We left the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Air. He is a younger flyer of this war, and it would be a very gracious gesture on his part if he could extend to this gallant Battle of Britain Force of the last war the authority to continue to wear this badge, which they regard as something that was awarded to them and something which they had to win in actual operations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has been into the matter and is going to tell us that all is well.
I would also like to ask the Secretary of State for Air whether he can tell us

anything about the Royal Air Force Regiment. I have sat through every one of the Air Estimates and I do not think I could recall an occasion when the Air Minister has told us anything about what is happening with regard to the Royal Air Force Regiment. Who is responsible for their welfare to-day? Many of the men are on ground defences at aerodromes, and some of us know what tedious work it is. Do they get their welfare arrangements from the Army or from the Royal Air Force? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Royal Air Force Regiment is properly used and fully employed at the present time? The complaints that one hears of redundance in man-power in various parts of the world, including this country, with regard to the Royal Air Force Regiment is common knowledge. It was intended that the Royal Air Force Regiment should be to the Royal Air Force what the Marines are to the Navy. Whether that idea has been properly developed and they have been able to establish the conditions and the actual functions and duties of the Royal Air Force Regiment as originally intended or not I do not know. I have heard that some of them are not fully employed and that others are employed on the kind of work for which they were not originally recruited. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something when he comes to reply.
I now want to say a word or two about the Royal Air Force Transport Command. Several hon. Members have raised from time to time in this House the question of vocational training in the Royal Air Force during the war to enable men to undertake duties and responsibilities in civil aviation after the war. Is the Minister now in a position to develop that plan? Transport Command have far more experience in navigation and so on than, shall I say, the ordinary members of crews and fighting pilots, but the difference between operational work, or military work, in the Royal Air Force and the responsibilities of civil aviation is very considerable, and I cannot, for the life of me, see why those members of the Royal Air Force cannot be given the fullest opportunities to get adequate training so that, when we can set up civil aviation after the war, we shall not be, as we were before the war, short of navigators and pilots.
I had also hoped that the Air Minister, in his Estimates speech, was going to tell


us that Transport Command would be developed upon a considerable scale. When it was first announced, a great deal of support was given to this idea. It was welcomed with enthusiasm. I do not know what part Transport Command is playing to-day in flying senior officers all over the world to their duties, or in ferrying troops to various parts, but I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to increase the size of Transport Command at the end of the war so that it would be able to fly our prisoners back to this country when they are liberated on the Continent of Europe. I am fully convinced that when we come to draft large numbers of troops to Burma, India, and the Far East, we shall be forced to use R.A.F. Transport Command to fly the men back on their ordinary routine leave. I should have thought that there could be no international complications about that, whatever might be said at the Chicago Air Conference.
Has the Air Ministry set about building up Transport Command to be the greatest fleet of aircraft that the world has ever seen, so as to use them to fly our men back from Burma on regular routine leave, and to fly our prisoners back from liberated Europe? There could be no objection to that, surely, and then, when we were able to get into the position of reverting to ordinary civil aviation, we should have what we are not now likely to get, as far as I can see, a considerable fleet of aircraft available for the Commonwealth and Atlantic air services. At the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a certain amount of redundancy in the aircraft industry in this country. It is not the case that he could not get the aircraft. Our factories, are very well able to produce the aircraft necessary to build up Transport Command, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fight this battle in Cabinet Committee and be successful.
In conclusion, I support the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who referred to the coming Debate on civil aviation. What we shall want to know on Tuesday is whether we are committed to the White Paper without having voted on it in this House. I understand that the Minister for Civil Aviation will be going to Cape Town in the near future.

There has been a full-dress Debate in another place, but since the White Paper was issued the House of Commons, which is responsible for voting large sums of money for this purpose, has had no opportunity to discuss it or the policy which the Minister for Civil Aviation will be advocating on behalf of this country when he goes to Cape Town.
We have not even had the Bill to set up the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry. How far, constitutionally, is he right in committing the Government and this House in any negotiations with shipping and railway interests and foreign Governments when, in fact, We have not had the Bill to legalise his present office? I should have thought that this was highly irregular, and I hope that, on Tuesday next, when we come to the Debate, we shall have a full explanation from the Government. I do not know who will speak for the Government, but I hope we shall be told about the negotiations that have taken place with regard to the shipping and railway interests, and whether the small, independent, airline operators, who, apparently, have been almost excluded from this potential scheme, have been consulted and have been given an adequate opportunity to state their case. We have had Debate after Debate on the future of civil aviation ever since B.O.A.C. was set up. The House of Commons has nearly always been ahead of the Government, and has nearly always been dissatisfied with Government policy. I hope the Government will give us an opportunitiy for voting on this scheme next Tuesday and that the Patronage Secretary will give us an open vote, so that we can express what we feel should be the true policy of the Government on civil aviation.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Driberģ: I want to raise one point which is causing some concern in the Middle East. I have not had the opportunity of giving my hon. and gallant Friend more than a few minutes' notice that I proposed to raise this point, but I think it right to do so at the earliest opportunity, since the proposal to which I am going to refer is due to take erect in a few weeks' time. It is a point analogous to the very controversial issue debated here some little time ago—the question of the compulsory posting overseas of members


of the A.T.S.—but, although more limited in its nature, I think it is, in a way, even more serious.
I understand that it is proposed to post W.A.A.F. personnel compulsorily from the Middle East to Iraq. Volunteers have been asked for, but it has been made clear to the women concerned that, if not enough volunteers are forthcoming, there will be posting. The climate of Iraq is such that male R.A.F. personnel only serve a two years' tour there, followed always, I understand, by one year elsewhere; and, even in peace-time, Royal Air Force personnel are never allowed to be accompanied by their wives when they go to Iraq, and that applies also, for instance, to Air Ministry auditors.
The other point which is worth noting particularly, I think, is that these compulsory postings of English women to Iraq are to take place in, or very soon after, next month—April—which is the start of the hot season there, and the worst possible time of the year. It was disclosed in a lecture to W.A.A.F. personnel in the Middle East, on 8th March, that some W.A.A.F. officers had agreed to this arrangement, after a short visit to Iraq, which they happened to pay during the brief cold season; so that, I think, their agreement cannot be taken as altogether a valid argument for the proposal. It may be argued that the climate of Iraq may not be bad for all women, or all English women, and it may also fairly he argued by the Air Ministry that all these W.A.A.F. personnel volunteered for overseas service in unspecified theatres of war—

Mr. E. P. Smith: May I ask my hon. Friend what are the extremes of temperature in Iraq? I understood that it was fairly cool.

Mr. Driberģ: I cannot give the exact figures, but I understand from people who have been there that it is a very hot climate indeed. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend has more detailed and encyclopædic information than I have. I say that it can fairly be argued that these women were all volunteers for overseas service in unspecified theatres of war, but I do suggest that my right hon. Friend should think very carefully before he allows women to be sent from the comparatively good climate of Egypt to the far worse climate of Iraq.

6.42 p.m.

Professor Gruffydd: I wish to say a few words on behalf of one of the depressed classes of this country—the education officers in the Royal Air Force. We have already had a debate on their position, when their case was very ably put by a hon. Member opposite and quite as ably answered by the Minister, but there are very many points still outstanding which I should like to mention at this opportunity. Perhaps the House is not quite clear about the position of education officers in the Royal Air Force. I am not sure that I am quite clear myself, but, so far as I can understand it, relying on the very scanty material which we have to study, they are, to quote Kipling, a kind of "giddy harumfrodite," neither one thing or another—or, to quote a slightly more dignified author, like Browning's "half angel and half bird." Because they are civilians they will not have any war gratuity but, at the same time, many members of this body hold the King's Commission. This is something which I simply cannot understand and I wonder if there is anybody in the whole House who can explain how it is that an officer who holds the King's Commission signed by the King, is also a civilian, and is to be treated as a civilian, and, although holding a Commission from the King, like any other officer of the Navy or Army or Air Force, will get no gratuity at the end of the war. And this in spite of the fact that there are men in the country who do not hold the King's commission, who are not in any kind of military service, and yet quite deservedly, of course, will get gratuities. I refer to such bodies as the National Fire Service. I shall mention only one or two matters about which members of this distinguished body are extremely dissatisfied. I should like to say in passing that this dissatisfaction is not a case of sporadic grumbling—you get in every Service, of course, some people who grumble whatever happens—but I think I could name this particular section of the Service and say about it categorically that it is perhaps the only service, whether in the Army, Navy or Air Force, where every single person without exception is dissatisfied with his position.
Take the case of discipline, for instance. As I understand it, if an education officer is given an order by an air officer, however unreasonable that order may be, and


he refuses to obey it—seeing that he holds the King's commission he is bound to come under Royal Air Force discipline—he will be punished for refusing to obey such an order. Yet he is there we are told, simply as an education officer, but if that is so, he should be treated as such. But though he is only an education officer, he is given miscellaneous duties exactly like any other officer and if he refuses to do them, as he is entitled to do, he will be very unpopular with his fellow officers, none of whom, I am told, have yet been able to understand the position of the education officer in their midst. I am also told that it had been found quite impossible for anyone to explain it to a set of men as normally intelligent as any in the King's service, to put it at its lowest.
These, however, are comparatively minor matters. There are two very much more important points, namely, the question of compensation and the question of gratuity. Not long ago, a certain ship happened to be carrying 25 education officers. It started for the Continent, but, due to some event, which naturally it is not right that I should specify, it had to turn back to port. During the time this event was taking place they had time to think. Of these 25 education officers, nine thought they would not be doing their duty by their wives and families by running the same risks as their fellow passengers, when the compensation to be given them would be very much less than that given to other branches of the Services and, when they came back to port, they refused to sail a second time.
As to war gratuities, this can be stated in the simplest of all terms—they get none. Whereas the members of the Civil Defence Service and the National Fire Service will receive gratuities and similar officers in the Royal Ordnance Corps—of course these are officers but they do civilian work just as these people whose cause I plead do—get gratuities, these will not. What is the case for refusing gratuities, except that they are civilians, I do not know, but I contend that they are, in every sense, Service officers. However, even if we grant that point, it must be remembered that some of these men have been out of their own work for five and a half years. They have given up their prospects for the future, they have failed to save money on account of the expense of living in messes, and so on, exactly in

the same way as other officers. I think the case for gratuities to soldiers is not mainly a reward for virtue—they are all virtuous—but some sort of compensation for what they have lost during the five and a half years they have been serving. Well, the education officers have missed exactly the same things as the other officers have, and in many cases they have missed more, because they have missed the chance of promotion in their own particular line of life, namely, education. There is a good deal more that could be said on this but I hope my right hon. Friend will not take it that I consider that this is in any way a simple question. I am perfectly certain he will give me an adequate answer but I hope the adequate answer will come after and not before he has really reconsidered the case of these excellent men.

6.50 p.m.

Captain Pluģģe: The war has lasted nearly six years and may go on for another two years before we have finished with Japan. During the course of those eight years a great number of young men have joined the Royal Air Force and have been trained with an intensity never before achieved as pilots, navigators, engineers and for ground staff duties. These gallant men in those many years have started on a definite and honourable career, because if one takes that slice of the first eight years of life of a man who starts at 20, during that time he is embracing the actual career which he would normally be expected to continue. Can the Minister say what comprehensive steps he is proposing to take to see that these tens, nay hundreds of thousands of pilots, engineers and navigators in the R.A.F. will have jobs in their calling when they come back to their native land? I suggest that the White Paper on Civil Aviation will not do much to help the Minister. The White Paper is the granting of a monopoly of civil aviation in this country, which is just ham-stringing the whole of civil aviation in this country. It is doing to civil aviation what Chinamen used to do to the Chinese women—they used to put their feet into steel boots so the girls' feet could not grow, in order to make sure that they would only toddle along. That is what this White Paper is doing to civil aviation in this country. In fact, if we refer to paragraph 27 of that Paper, we see that the Paper admits there will not


be any room for these 20,000 or 30,000 pilots and navigators of the R.A.F. It says:
The constituent elements of the three corporations have expressed their keen desire that every possible opportunity should he given to officers and men of the R.A.F. to take service with the corporations. Close relations will be maintained with the Air Council through the Minister of Civil Aviation in order to give full effect to this intention.
That sounds all very good but listen to the rounding off sentence of the paragraph:
It will, however, be appreciated that openings for employment in the Civil Air Transport will not be large compared with the war-time strength of the Royal Air Force.
In other words, it is admitted by the White Paper that there will be practically no room whatever for these men to remain airmen in civil life. Their career is just taken away from them. But the position is much worse than that. The White Paper, in creating this monopoly, only permits those to enter into the field of aviation who happen to be either railwaymen or shipping proprietors or someone who has run an air line before the war. That means to say that an airman who comes back to this country after the war and wants to start an air line will not be allowed to do so. It is dreadful to think that these men who have behaved so gallantly, so bravely during the war will come back to their country and find that they are forbidden to run an air line. They can embrace some other profession. They can become probably a porter or a doorman at some cinema, but they will not be allowed to fly professionally. The White Paper shows that the three corporations will join together for the training of personnel. This means that if an airman is not liked for some reason, if he displeases some high official in one of the corporations, he will be black-balled by the other two corporations and will have no means whatever of following the profession which he has embraced in the first eight years of his working career, and for which, out of public funds, he has received so efficient a training.

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend but I do not think he has read the White Paper very carefully. I would point out that if he will do so, he will find that the field of chartering, of running air-taxi services, is left open to free competition.

Captain Pluģģe: My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly correct—that is one saving point, that the charter-plane field is open, but it is very difficult to see what chartering will mean or how it will expand. Chartering may develop very considerably; on the other hand it may be that the regular running of airlines may make it small. After all, the chartering of private aircraft may be a very expensive thing, and possibly there will not be very many clients. It is entirely a different type of flying from running large air liners that take 50 or 100 passengers. The chartering business is more likely to be for the small planes carrying two or three passengers. There is a certain amount of space there, however, and I would urge the Minister that every assistance should be given to those valiant pilots to start up private chartering businesses so that even in this minuscule manner they can practise in the profession they have embraced.
But I want to ask the Minister what is to be done with an airman coming back to England who may be interested in aviation and may have a certain amount of money, or may influence his friends to invest their money. He will not be allowed to establish an airline. Why? Because he is a British subject. If he happened to be from Spain or from Sweden or some other country, he would be able to do this, but because he is a British subject he is not allowed to do so in this country. Surely this is not a policy that should commend itself as a British, national policy—to stop these men, who have made of their war work a peaceful career, from following it? Therefore I ask my right hon. Friend what is going to happen if one of these men goes abroad to try and join one of the foreign air lines which will be established and which will fly to and over England. It may be suggested that foreign countries may not be pleased to accept a man not of their own nationality to run their air lines and will naturally not copy us but give preference to the nationals of their own country, to whom the air lines belong. However, in view of the great efficiency of the R.A.F. and the wonderful work they have done during the war, it is possible that some countries will be very glad and happy to encourage British pilots to operate their lines. In that case are these British pilots or these British airline owners or operators to be tracked down by our Govern-


ment? Is our Government going to instruct our foreign representatives to track down these men and stop them from doing the monopoly work, as this Government has done in other fields? As I have pointed out before, there are three fields of human endeavour in which, if you grant a monopoly, you are following a policy which consists of forbidding your fellow nationals doing in your country what foreigners are allowed to come and do in your country. They are the air, shipping and radio. If you were to give a monopoly to a corporation to run shipping, as has been suggested for these three corporations, it would mean that two Englishmen could form an English company, could buy a cargo boat, could put it on the sea but, if they came to Southampton, because they were flying the Union Jack they would not be allowed to enter Southampton. They would have to wait outside the three mile limit. While waiting outside the three mile limit they would see Chinese, Belgian, and Italian ships going into Southampton while they were ostracised. That is exactly the position of a monopoly granted in the air, according to the White Paper.
When the White Paper is a Bill in operation it will mean as it means to-day that an English airman who has fought in this war can buy a commercial transport aircraft but he will not be allowed to land that aircraft at Heston airport to pick up passengers and take them away. No, for he is flying the Union Jack. Flying the Union Jack is a crime. But a Swiss or a Belgian plane can land at Heston to drop passengers, to pick them up and take them. These machines are foreign, they are not flying the Blue Ensign, they can carry on. They must be allowed to land for, if they were not, B.O.A.C. could not land in Italy or Spain, etc. It is a most wicked thing to grant a monopoly in any one of these three fields—air, sea or ether. If you give a monopoly for the construction or operation of railways or the opening of fish and chip shops, or coal mining, then no Englishmen or foreigners can open a shop or mine or operate a railway who is not of the chosen instrument. If you give a monopoly in shipping, radio and the air you are following a policy which means that you are ostracising your own people—you are saying to an Englishman or to an English company: "You cannot do this in Great

Britain but the foreigner can come and do it under your nose." Surely that can never be accepted by any sane person as a proper national policy for this country.
When we come to those British pilots who are compelled to go abroad for work and enterprise, will the Government track them down if they start an air line? Suppose they go over to Spain and Spain is hospitable enough to say: "We will allow you to establish a line between Madrid and Lisbon." Is the British Government going to give them assistance to do that or will it stop them from doing so by making diplomatic representations to Spain and Portugal? It may seem strange to hon. Members to hear me suggest that the Government should go and track down their nationals and prevent them from taking over a foreign concession which is offered, but they have done so in the past. It has been done to me as the chairman of a British company in the field of radio, when the Luxembourg Government decided to build a broadcasting station and decided to tender abroad for the concession.
I went over to quote for the concession, and a French company went to Luxembourg to quote for it too. Our Ambassador tried to stop the English company from obtaining the concession, while the French company naturally had the support of the French Ambassador and they secured the contract and built the whole station. My company has to be content to accept the contract of operating the station on a working arrangement with the French company. Because an English individual cannot run an airline in England, are we going to track him down when he tries to get a concession in a foreign country to fly a line from that country to England? When we think of what these airmen have done, and how they have embraced their careers in such a magnficent way, I say that to hamper them in continuing to follow the careers they have started so brilliantly would be a dreadful act. I would, therefore, like my right hon. Friend to say what steps he is taking to see to it that these valiant and gallant airmen, mechanics and engineers will have the full opportunity of continuing their careers, after the war has been won, in England and in any part of the world.

7.1 p.m.

Lady Apsley: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for


Chatham (Captain Pluģ ģe) has just brought out an important point. I would like to mention, quite briefly, two other equally important points. The first is with regard to the allocation of airports, which is a vital matter in relation to the location of industry. The vision and initiative shown by many of our municipalities in pre-war days should have some return. We have heard suggestions about airport allocations, and I would like to press the point that the West Country should not be forgotten. For one thing, it is the nearest landfall in the crossing of the Atlantic, and, for another, there are suitable places there waiting for development. The great industrialists in the country are waiting to see where these post-war civilian airports are to be located. I would like to remind the Minister that the wise men came from the East and went to the West and, therefore, I hope that one of the important airports of the future will be placed in the West Country. I suggest that my right hon. Friend could find no better allocation than Bristol, where the municipality had the vision and foresight, as long ago as 1925, to lay the foundations of the airport which has been without comparison in the useful work which it has been able to carry out for the British Overseas Airways Corporation, for Transport Command and in the defence of this country. So I hope that we shall have a statement as early as possible from the Minister regarding the allocation of our future airports.
The second point I want to make concerns our smaller airports. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) mentioned this very important part of our future operations in this country, and I think it would be tragic if all the work done in pre-war days by the small-line operators was forgotten, and they were eliminated from air operations in post-war days. They put their all into this job before the war; they produced some of the best personnel, which the Minister was proud to take into Transport Command; they have proved their worth, and I hope means will be found to give them that opportunity for enterprise, vision and initiative which they showed before the war and will show again after the war.

7.6 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I do not wish to speak for long,

but I should not be inclined to make an apology if I did, because the House in these days discusses questions of importance in a much shorter time than in the past, and I am not at all sure that that leads to efficient administration. In the old days we discussed these Estimates at considerable length, and it was possible both for questions of main policy to be discussed and for individual points to be put. Nowadays everybody is in a desperate hurry to get business through, and I think administration suffers. I think the Secretary of State would probably agree with me that that is so, although perhaps not in regard to this particular Estimate. I would like to refer to what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Pluģģe), who raised a point of great importance. I do not propose to follow him on the subject of civil aviation, because I understand that we are to have a Debate on this matter next week. But I make the comment—and I hope it will not be regarded as unfriendly by the Minister or the Under-Secretary—that the White Paper scheme is the best in the circumstances, although it would be a profound mistake to suppose that the Government are now out of the controversial wood. There will be more controversy surrounding the question of civil aviation in the next few years than around any other question of the day, and a lot of it will arise round the point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.
We have the most magnificent Air Force any country has ever possessed—and I hope it will not be regarded as wounding by our Allies if I say that. This Force has been built into a most magnificent engine of defence and offence, yet we have not been told, so far, what is to happen to it after the war. That is where the real disadvantage of a Coalition Government comes in; if we had not a Coalition Government, but an ordinary party Government, they would say what was their defence policy for after the war. This Government can do nothing of the sort. All they can deal with is short-term policy, in a most sketchy manner. That is greatly inimical to the interests of the Air Force. It is not the fault of the Minister, or of the Prime Minister; it is the fault of the situation. It is greatly antipathetic to the interests of the Air Force that the Minister cannot stand at that Box and announce our post-war


policy for the next 10 years. I think the American Government have gone much further than we have. One of their spokesmen has referred to the need for an enormous Air Force after the war. We have had no such declaration from His Majesty's Government. We do not know at all what are their views.
That, of course, is intimately connected with the point which was so well put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham. We have given a skilled training to men through the Air Force which has never been equalled in our history. No Governmental organisation has ever provided the training for men that the Royal Air Force is providing to-day. It is on quite a different basis from that which is given in the Army. We are taking young men, in the most formative years of their life, and turning them into most highly skilled people for the purpose for which they have enlisted, to fly machines and beat the enemy, yet we are unable to say what is to happen to them after the war. This is not a party matter, as I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House will agree. It is really a calamitous situation, and this Government or any other Government in the future will have considerable trouble if we see air lines flying here with foreign pilots.
I want to make an earnest appeal to the Secretary of State to handle personally the psychological aspect of the A.T.C. problem. What is the situation? The other night there were speeches very critical of the Government on this subject, and I think most of the criticisms were justified, though not all. We had a reply from the Under-Secretary, from an obvious Departmental brief, in which he said that he was doing his best to deal with the matter. If I may say so in all friendliness, that is not nearly good enough. What is the history of the A.T.C.? I know something officially about its origin. It was built up in a spirit of high endeavour; it had no political complications; it was believed by people of all parties that it would be an excellent organisation, not merely from the point of view of defence but from a moral point of view. Boys were led to believe that they would have the first choice of entry into the Air Force. From a practical point of view the Air Ministry could not say

other than they said the other night—that in view of the tremendous demand for men for the Army it was necessary for boys in the A.T.C. to go into the Army. That is right, and I support it. But it is not enough merely to say that. I think the Minister should realise this spirit of high endeavour which has always actuated and motivated this Corps, which is, I might almost say, the corps d'élite of Cadet Corps.
Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to address members of this organisation at a big meeting in London, and say something which would make them feel that this necessity for them to go into the Army, owing to the demand for man-power, was most regrettable but was, nevertheless, unavoidable? Above all, could not the Minister say that while it is not possible for the Government to determine and define, at this moment, our post-war policy in regard to the Royal Air Force, there would be an Air Force of some sort after the war and that the A.T.C. would always be looked to in peace-time as the chosen instrument, so far as we can have one, for pre-entry training in the Royal Air Force? If the Minister could deal with the matter on those lines, and on more sentimental lines than has been done in the past, he would have a lot of support from responsible opinion in this country, and from myself and others who have been at the Air Ministry. I therefore make a most earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend to act on those lines.

7.14 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Commander Brabner): I would like to take up straight away the point which has been raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), and to say that my right hon. Friend and I are doing our very utmost to deal satisfactorily with the problem he has put forward. I will admit to failings in experience, owing to lack of years, but I want to say that although personal reminiscences are generally boring, about a year ago I was one of the men who was doing some flying, and that I hope I still have particularly at heart the interests of the pilots, and will continue to have them at heart after the war. My right hon. Friend and I will do what we can, in the best interests of the Royal Air Force, to see that these young men are properly


treated. As soon as we can make some announcement about these things we will do so. As soon as my right hon. Friend is in a position to make a further statement about the A.T.C. he will do so himself. Our difficulty is that we are continually being asked to make statements about the future and that we have nothing to say. That, perhaps, is a brutally frank statement, but we are trying our utmost to see that we shall have something to say in the near future—a s near a future as possible. Therefore, I would appeal to hon. Members to be generous and patient with us, because we are fully seized of their anxiety in these matters, and as soon as we can tell them something concrete and definite we will do so. While I accept the Noble Lord's strictures about the statement that I made about the A.T.C.—

Earl Winterton: There was no stricture.

Commander Brabner: I admit that it was extraordinarily dull. I feel that nothing could infuse any life into it, but I accept full responsibility for it, and I did my very best to give the A.T.C. some hope that they were being looked after. We will try to give them more flying and increased gliding. We do not want them to do endless parades and desk work and then have to go into the Army.

Mr. Gallacher: How is it that the Government have so much to say about giving away our air assets to railway companies and nothing to say about these valuable assets, the young men training for the Air Force?

Commander Brabner: Perhaps that was an over-frank statement on my part. We shall have something to say and I am only asking hon. Members to be patient for the moment and we will let them have a statement on these matters as soon as we have something worth saying. As far as civil aviation is concerned, having taken some part as a back bencher in the agitation to get the affairs of civil aviation taken away from the Air Ministry, the moment I had the honour to be sent to the Air Ministry I took no further interest in civil aviation except, as was my duty, in the day to day operations of the Department. Therefore I ask hon. Members to accept my assurance that the suggestions that they have made about various sections of the country, which have great beauty as

far as airports are concerned, will be sent to the right quarter, and when the Government representatives introduce the White Paper next Tuesday, I have no doubt that a full statement will be made on the policy of civil aviation and hon. Members will have an opportunity of debating it and will receive an answer. I hope they will not think that I am lacking in my duty in not being able to answer them tonight, because, although on a legal and technical basis it is the Air Ministry's responsibility, the House is aware of the arrangements that have been made for dealing with it.
I want to come lastly to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). First of all the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) suggested an alarming thing, that there was about to be compulsory posting of W.A.A.F. overseas. There is absolutely no truth in this at all. W.A.A.F volunteers may be posted to the Middle East—this includes Iraq—but there are no W.A.A.F.s serving in Iraq and none could be compulsorily posted there. If we should want any W.A.A.F.s in Iraq we should ask for volunteers.

Mr. Driberģ: I am glad to have that reassurance, but will the hon. and gallant Gentleman communicate with the Middle East, because quite definitely they have been told that unless sufficient volunteers are forthcoming for Iraq they will be posted there?

Commander Brabner: I must ask the hon. Member where he obtained his information, because all I am saying is fact as we know it in the Ministry. If he will tell me where he has got his information from I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Driberģ: Certainly—and I will put down a Question for next Wednesday.

Commander Brabner: The hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Granville) raised points about agriculture and the single observer's wing. Here again, our aerodrome policy, as was announced recently, must have relation to the size of the post-war Air Force, and we are in no position to make a statement about that because we have not only this war but the war against the Japanese on our hands and we cannot tell how that will affect the size of the Air Force at the moment. The hon. Member is under a


misapprehension about the observer's wing. The pilot's badge is an integral part of the uniform of the Royal Air Force. As a concession to those who have some reserve obligations to the Royal Air Force, members of the Army were allowed to wear pilot's wings, but that is where the concession ended. The concession cannot go on for ever, otherwise we should have requests for every one to wear pilot's wings and, no doubt, members of the Air Force would like to wear boy scouts badges, and the uniform would become an odd collection of insignia.

Major F. W. Cundiff: My hon. and gallant Friend has not got the picture quite correctly.

Commander Brabner: My hon. and gallant Friend raised the point on the Adjournment some weeks ago, and I promised to look into it again. I am convinced, on the facts as I know them, that these pilot's wings are an integral part of the Royal Air Force uniform. If they were not so 25 years ago, I cannot be held responsible for it but they are not to-day regarded as anything but part of the Royal Air Force uniform.

Major Cundiff: Is it not a fact that Army officers are wearing wings? There are many cases of senior Army officers who qualified in France and at home in the last war and are able to put these pilot's wings up. The point with regard to the observer's wing is that this is something that was granted for war service. It was impossible to get the observer's wing in England. We were sent out of the country and did in some cases as much as 100 hours' operational flying, and the observer's wing was awarded to us in France, as appeared in the orders, as an award.

Commander Brabner: I am afraid that that is where my hon. and gallant Friend and I must agree to disagree, because it is a fact that these pilot's wings are a part of the uniform and are a qualification. They are in no sense a decoration. They are a badge of efficiency. I am afraid that is all I can say about it except that, if we go any further, the difficulty about limiting the concession is very nearly impossible. Originally we allowed members of the Army to wear pilot's wings as long as they had a reserve obligation towards

the Royal Air Force, but it was found impossible to impose a limit. It is a sort of snowball. We felt that we must make it stop here.

Captain Pluģģe: Is a flying officer of the Royal Air Force permitted to wear the R.F.C. badge? That should continue to be allowed as it is a sign of great seniority.

Commander Brabner: I am afraid I am not quite certain of the answer to that. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with me and I will give him a firm answer.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) raised the question of decorations for Battle of Britain pilots. The whole matter of war medals is under consideration. It is a matter in which the Prime Minister takes the very closest interest and I have no doubt there will be a statement on the subject in due course, but I am not able to make one to-night. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) raised a point about warrant officers and their pensions. Most of the information that he gave the House to-night he got from me.

Sir G. For: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that is not so.

Commander Brabner: Whichever way it is, my hon. Friend is in communication with me on the subject and I hope he will allow me to give him a reply as soon as I have one ready. I certainly have not got one at the moment.
The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) made a plea for his constituency also to be considered as a site for an aerodrome, and I shall send that on to the proper place. It is still permissible to support Ministers in the House as well as to criticise them, and the Air Ministry is most grateful for the support that he gave to us and our bombing policy. I should like to emphasise, if emphasis is needed, the point of my right hon. Friend's remarks, which have been slightly misrepresented in some cases, about our policy vis-à-vis rocket sites in Holland. The paramount consideration which we have in front of us all the time is efficiency and efficacy of attack. If we think we shall achieve something by making an attack we shall make that attack, and that is the sole criterion upon which we really judge the thing.


Humanitarian considerations naturally come into it but they take their proper place. Efficiency and efficacy are what we are concerned about.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton asked a number of questions. I cannot give as full an answer as I should have liked but I have some information which the House may like to have. The hon. Member asked me why bombing had not won the war, or why the Germans were still holding out against our bombing. It is a matter of surprise to many of us that they have taken so much without the obvious effects that we might have expected. At the same time since the Secretary, of State last spoke, on 6th March, we have dropped no less than 46,000 tons of bombs on Germany. Slightly more than half of them have been dropped by Bomber Command and 21,000 or 22,000 by the 8th Air Force. It seems to me an astonishing total. That scale of attack will continue, and I hope, and my right hon. Friend also hopes, that it will increase during the good bombing weather. Forty-six thousand tons in eight days is quite a weight of high explosive. The hon. Member asked me, too, how it was that some of Runstedt's troops were able to get back across the Rhine. This operation is under the control of General Eisenhower, and it would not be proper for me to express an opinion, but we must emphasise that no measure of air superiority can prevent an army or bits of an army moving at night and we have never suggested that it could. It is surely some sign of our air superiority over the Germans that we have a bridge across the Rhine, which we are maintaining against bombing and all the attacks that the Luftwaffe can thrown against it. This is the measure of our air superiority, and the measure of German inefficiency at the moment that they cannot destroy that bridge.

Mr. Bowles: The question I put is quite specific. General Eisenhower said that he is going to destroy the German army West of the Rhine. The Air Minister says that we have complete air supremacy over Germany. How was it therefore that General Eisenhower, for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot speak here—I do not know why—with the air supremacy that the Americans and we hold, allowed the Germans to get across?

Commander Brabner: We would not claim that air supremacy and superiority could immobilise an Army. All we claim is that it is having an immobilising effect, and the only occasion when a reasonable reaction of the Germans was possible was when air power was neutralised by the weather in the Ardennes in the early part of this year.
May I, in support of the effect of our bombing policy, say that even in the Ardennes offensive it is now known that the Panzer divisions used were less than 50 per cent. of their strength, and they were known to be short of oil. That should be a recommendation to every hon. Member that the strategic policy which Bomber Command has adopted has had and is having an immense effect in immobilising the enemy. We have had the opportunity of having a look at Cologne, from Bomber Command point of view, and we can say that every factory of any significance has been destroyed or severely damaged, that 81 per cent. of the total built-up area of the city has been destroyed, and that in the sparsely built-up area, presumably in the suburbs, 45 per cent. has been totally destroyed. That means that 60 per cent. of Cologne has been totally wiped out.

Mr. Bowles: I have different information. I understand that the walls collapsed from the force of the explosion but that the machinery does not get broken up quite so easily as the hon. and gallant Gentleman imagines, and that it is easy to put up asbestos walls and carry on production.

Commander Brabner: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's information is not as recent as the information I have here. It has been a very stimulating and encouraging piece of news for Bomber Command to know that their bombing has been so accurate. May I say a word about accuracy? I speak with some fervour about this, because this concern about pilots' accuracy is something I feel very personally as there are many of my friends who are flying, and I know with what skill they operate. It is probably more accurate now to bomb at night than it is to bomb by daylight. Such efficacy has Bomber Command achieved, that in our efforts at night bombing, with our technique of marking, the concentration we can achieve is really devastating. I can assure Mem-


bers that if they had been able to see, as I have recently seen, in Europe some of the targets, they would have been as convinced as I am that the accuracy of Bomber Command is very high indeed.

Mr. Granville: Is that not all the more reason why we should have prevented the Germans crossing the Rhine at night?

Commander Brabner: Hon. Members must be reasonable in this matter. To fly at 18,000 feet and attempt to pick out a non-continuous chain of barges would be very difficult. When I speak of accuracy of Bomber Command, I mean accuracy in, for instance, continually destroying the Dortmund-Ems Canal and the operations against the. Mittelland Canal. It is only fair that the House should give its confidence to the pilots of Bomber Command.

Mr. Gallacher: The Under-Secretary says that they are exceptionally accurate at night despite the black-out. I take it that the black-out does not, in any way, interfere with the bombing?

Commander Brabner: Most of our scientific efforts of the last two years have been directed to an attempt to destroy the black-out. We have invented such flares, lights, markers and so on as to overcome the black-out. That is partly why the bombing is accurate. We have lit the places in the way we wanted them lit and have overcome the German blackout. I have, I am afraid, in rather an unconnected way, answered many of the points which have been put in the Debate. I would like to conclude by repeating what I said about civil aviation, that there will be an opportunity of debating it on Tuesday, and I hope that the House will excuse me giving an answer to-night.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL)

Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force; ordered to be brought in by Sir James Grigg, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Arthur Henderson and Commander Brabner.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

REPORT [6th March]

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [9th March]

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944

CLASS II

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,088, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."

DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,313,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples; and for certain salaries and expenses."

CLASS VII

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament buildings."

CLASS V

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of National Insurance."

CLASS I

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for certain miscellaneous expenses, including certain grants,in aid."

CLASS II

CHINESE CURRENCY STABILISATION FUND

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1945, to reimburse to certain British Banks their subscriptions to the Chinese Currency Stabilisation Fund, 1939."

CLASS VIII

SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES

8. "That a Supplementary sum, rot exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment."

CLASS IV

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1945, for public education in Scotland, including grants in aid of the Education (Scotland) Fund; for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; and for grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection with youth service."

CLASS VI

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education and research, agricultural marketing, agricultural credits, expenses in respect of regulation of agricultural wages, certain grants in aid, and remanet subsidy payments."

CLASS VIII

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S WAR PENSIONS

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £51,510, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for war pensions and allowances (including cost of treatment) arising out of the war of 1954–18 to merchant seamen and fishermen and their dependants and the administrative expenses connected therewith."

Resolutions agreed to.

ARMED FORCES (VOLUNTARY WELFARE WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.)

7.37 p.m.

Miss Ward: In order to nourish the Armed Forces—to use the words of the Secretary of State for War—the Service Departments have requested volunteers from certain voluntary organisations to act as welfare officers in Europe, and to go out to India and Burma to carry out certain undertakings with regard to the Services in those parts of the world. As always, voluntary organisations do their utmost to serve the interests of the nation, and organisations like the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, the Women's Voluntary Service, the British Red Cross Society, St. John Ambulance Organisation, and F.A.N.Y.S. have been recruiting women to meet the express wishes of the Government. When I heard that these women were being asked to volunteer, I made some inquiry as to what their position would be if they were injured by enemy action, or contracted tropical diseases or tuberculosis.
I have found that the position is most unsatisfactory. I lay emphasis on the fact that the Government made the approach to these organisations because they felt that it is in the interests of the Services that these women should be asked to undertake certain duties. I therefore claim that it is a Government responsibility to see that they are satisfactorily protected in the same way as the men and women who take part in ordinary Service life. I find that the Government have decided that so far as injury from enemy action is concerned these volunteers will be covered by the provisions


of the civil war injuries measure and if they are, in fact, damaged either by an enemy bomb or by enemy gunfire, they will receive the benefit of that Bill. But if they contract tuberculosis through exposure, or living under unsatisfactory conditions, they are not so protected by the Government. If, in the Far East, they contract a tropical disease, which I think everyone will agree in certain circumstances can have far worse effects on the health of women and girls than being actually wounded by the enemy, I find that the Government accept no responsibility.
I asked one or two Questions in the House and I subsequently wrote to my right hon. Friend. I would just like to read the answer that he gave:
I have considered the contents of your letter of 23rd January regarding British Red Cross Society workers doing welfare work with the troops of the B.L.A. While you are right in believing that these workers, if normally resident in this country, are covered for 'war injuries' by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, I am afraid they are not entitled to pension or treatment from my Department if they contract typhoid or tuberculosis.
I appreciate and share your interest in these voluntary workers and I recognise that whilst they are abroad on work approved by the appropriate Department, they should have the cover afforded for war injuries to civilians in this country. I feel, however, that anything beyond this is a matter for the voluntary organisation concerned.
I may say that it never occurred to me that from the sums of money which are collected by such organisations as St. John's and the British Red Cross for carrying out valuable humanitarian work, they would be expected to provide protection for workers who are recruited by the Government for services to the troops, and I do not think that, when appeals have been made to the public for contributions to these organisations, they expected that that was the use to which their money was going to be put.
I want to say one special word about the F.A.N.Y.S. They have been asked to raise a unit to go to Burma. Everyone is aware of the difficulties of service in Burma and the conditions under which our troops have to operate in Burma. So far as the F.A.N.Y. organisation is concerned, they do not make appeals for public funds for humanitarian purposes at all and I do think that it is imposing an obligation on this voluntary organisation

which they should not be called upon to accept. I think if the Government are going to recruit these women, and make use of their services, and if great pressure is being brought to bear on these voluntary organisations, because the welfare services are very badly needed, the Government ought to take care to provide for them, in the same way as they do for the men and women who have been recruited for the Services in the ordinary way.

Major Markham: Is it not a fact that in the contracts of the majority of these voluntary organisations there is cover, by payment, for services rendered, and in some of these contracts there are clauses covering disabilities caused through war injuries received during that service?

Miss Ward: I was going to develop that point. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for India, who has of course a watching brief over the interests of those who go out to the Far East. He went a little further than my right hon. Friend because he said:
I am discussing with the War Office the exact method of providing against the risks of sickness and injury in the case of voluntary welfare workers sent to India, e.g., whether by insurance, as in the case of members of the S.S. and A.F.A. who have already left for India, or, as in the case of V.A.D. members serving in India, by treatment on the analogy of the War Warrants concerning pensions and similar provisions, but I can assure my hon. Friend that by one method or another provision will be made against these risks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 989.]
As will be seen, the Secretary of State for India does not look on the problem in quite the same way as his right hon. Friend. However, I have made further inquiries and I find that the final decision with regard to these workers who volunteer to go to India is this. The Government will pay the premium for taking out an insurance cover, to the extent, I think, of £500. Just take the case of a girl who contracts some tropical disease in Burma, and who, as a result, is incapacitated perhaps for many years. What value to her is an income from £500 going to be? I want to make this perfectly plain because my hon. and gallant Friend was quite right when he said some of these organisations did in fact protect the interest of their workers. These voluntary organisations do provide treatment for them out


of what they call their compassionate fund but of course it depends on the circumstances of the girl, how much the organisation will do for her. I understand that in cases where girls have contracted tuberculosis through service in Europe or India or in the Far East, the British Red Cross, to take an example, has behaved with the greatest generosity and has taken every possible care to look after the girls and to see that, so far as possible, they receive adequate and proper treatment.
But that is not the point. Why, for instance, should the money collected by the S.S. and A.F.A. to look after the interests of the wives and dependants of serving men and women be taken away from the use for which it is subscribed to undertake an obligation which should be borne by the Government? I do not think that it is a tolerable position at all, and though my hon. and gallant. Friend points out that some voluntary organisations are looking after the interest of their workers, I submit that it is not a duty which should be imposed on them at all and I think the Government are quite wrong to expect the voluntary organisations to accept obligations which, from every point of view, should be the obligations of the Government. Although for those who are serving in the Far East the premium provides a cover up to £500, it is not at all a satisfactory position if the girls contract diseases which may have long-standing results on their health.
I wish to illustrate another very anomalous position. If a girl has her leg shot off in Burma by the Japanese she, presumably, is protected under the civilian war injuries scheme. But if she is involved in an accident on a jungle road as a result of which she has her leg amputated, she gets, so far as the Government are concerned, no treatment allowance, no artificial limb and no pension. I do not think, and I hope that the House will agree with me, that the position is tolerable and I submit the Government are being most ungenerous in this matter.
There is one other point. I made some inquiries, and I find that some of these voluntary organisations have asked, for the benefit of the girls, that before they are posted their chests should be examined to see whether any latent tuberculosis or weakness can be discovered. It has been suggested that they should have

an examination by radiology. This has been refused on the ground that the Army authorities are far too busy. I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a most monstrous suggestion that these girls should be expected to live quite often under very difficult conditions and work in most undesirable climates for the benefit of our troops, when our medical boards in this country cannot take sufficient trouble to see whether the girls have or have not got patches on their lungs which have remained undiscovered in the ordinary course of civilian life. I cannot understand why the Government can ask for volunteers for this service and not take sufficient care to protect their health.
I do not for one moment suggest that shall get a satisfactory reply from my right hon. Friend. I am not altogether blaming him because I know there may be great difficulties in persuading either the War Cabinet or the Treasury to do anything. I know that the Government are never very friendly towards voluntary organisations. In matters of this kind they take everything they can get but they will never give anything. I was determined however that the position should be put on Parliamentary record. In the years to come, when the war is over and some of these gallant women come back from service in Burma or from trying to help in the welfare work of the British Army of Liberation, having contracted tuberculosis or some tropical disease, and ask the Ministry of Pensions for redress, and are told that it is no responsibility of the Minister, I hope that somebody will remember that on this day in the House of Commons, I made a public protest against the treatment which is being meted out to these girls and women. Nothing, of course, will prevent volunteers coming forward and it is right that it should be so. Nothing will prevent the grand work which is done by these voluntary organisations for our serving men and women, but I do submit that there is no justification whatever for the attitude taken up by the Government, and in the future if many cases come back to this country in which nothing is done by the Government to help these volunteers I hope subsequent Parliaments will see to it that the present position is altered.

8.0 p.m.

Major Markham: It is one of the misfortunes of this House


that when a matter is raised on the Adjournment one never knows quite what it is going to be in detail until one has heard the speech. Consequently, one is not able to come armed with the facts and particulars which are often necessary to make what one might personally regard as a good speech. I therefore hope that the House will be patient with me if I can talk only in generalisations on a subject which has been near to my thoughts for some time. The hon. Lady rather overstressed her case when she said that the Government were not friendly towards these organisations.

Miss Ward: I meant in regard to the expenditure of money.

Major Markham: It would have helped the House greatly if the hon. Lady had made herself clear on that matter. The Government have helped these voluntary organisations a great deal, and they have lost no opportunity of showing their gratitude for what has been done done by organisations like the British Red Cross, the Society of the Order of St. John, and dozens of others that are known to hon. Members of this House. The first question I should like to put to the hon. Lady is whether the complaint or charge which she has made to-night against the Government has been made with the approval of at any rate some of the major of these voluntary organisations. I have been connected with the British Red Cross for some years and I have never heard a single complaint from a high-standing officer of it that the Government, at any rate during this war, have been mean or "mingy" in any way.

Miss Ward: Does the hon. and gallant Member really want me to reply to that observation? I shall be delighted to do so. Fairly recently I have been on a long trip out to China, and back all through the Middle East, and I have seen a great deal of the work of these voluntary organisations which everybody agrees is absolutely magnificent. On very many occasions, points about the financial undertakings that the organisations have to enter into to protect their personnel were brought to my notice. I am very well aware that I had not asked any of the voluntary organisations whether I should raise this matter to-day or not, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend

that I have checked up my facts. The point is that no voluntary organisation will ever bring pressure to bear upon the Government, and that is why I think it is all the more important that those of us who know the work of the voluntary organisations should try to get the Government to give a straight deal.

Major Markham: I find myself completely mystified now by the hon. Lady. She claims to speak on behalf of the voluntary organisations.

Miss Ward: No, my hon. and gallant Friend has got me absolutely wrong. I never said I was speaking on behalf of the voluntary organisations, but I have a perfect right to speak for myself, and when I know that friends of mine are being pressed to go into those voluntary organisations and do service abroad, I think I have a perfect right to make inquiries and to see whether they are protected against injury and disease. I do not see why I should not speak for the voluntary organisations to the House as an individual Member, if I like.

Major Markham: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady in her point, but it is a very remarkable thing that there has been no approach by the voluntary, associations themselves.

Miss Ward: The hon. and gallant Member knows that for a fact?

Major Markham: I do not know all the details, naturally. There may have been under-cover approaches, but there have been no public approaches. If everything were as bad as the hon. Lady thinks, surely one of the duties of those institutions would be to come to the Government in the first place. I can give an example of how one of those bodies did come to the Government when it got into difficulties. The House will remember that very early in the last war the British Red Cross and the Society of the Order of St. John took over the entire responsibility for the graves of the British and Dominion dead in France and Belgium. They came to a point when, owing to the greater number of casualties in that war than in any previous war, they had to come to the Government and say that they could no longer carry on with that great work.
I think I am right in saying that within a few weeks the Government pledged


their word to take over the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, on terms that were most satisfactory to the British Red Cross. They took over the whole of their personnel, and Major-General Sir Fabian Ware is still doing great service in that matter. He was taken over as a plain "Mr." in the British Red Cross, but he subsequently became a major-general and other individuals were treated accordingly.
I do not think one could find a case in which any of these great reputable societies had come to the Government and asked for aid in which aid had not been given. I therefore say that when the hon. Lady comes to this House and raises what she calls a purely personal point of view affecting those great organisations, she is reflecting in no unmeasured terms upon those organisations themselves. They have extremely capable men and women at their head, and the hon. Lady would have been better advised perhaps to have left it to them to do something in the matter that she has spoken about to-day. Perhaps I have gone a little over the line of courtesy, but the hon. Lady knows me well enough to understand that there has been nothing personal in what I have said.
Getting down to the crux of the matter, let us ask whether those voluntary workers have been treated unfairly in any way. The present arrangement is that they have volunteered for a definite job. They have their contracts drawn up with the societies and with Government approval, and in those contracts there is usually a specific reference to what shall happen in the case of war damage or illness. Everything is down in black and white. I have yet to learn of a British Red Cross worker or a worker in the Society of the Order of St. John who has met with any unfortunate accident or illness and has not had very proper and correct treatment from the organisation. If that arrangement is in existence to-day it is a satisfactory method, both to the societies and to the Government, and I fail to see why it should be interrupted on an individual complaint by one Member of this House, in spite of the wishes of the societies themselves. This is the first time in my Parliamentary experience that I have intervened in the Adjournment Debate of another Member, but I think this one has so much in it that it

deserves interruption. I hope the Minister can give the matter a death blow; I have only been able to paralyse it temporarily.

8.8 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am grateful both to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) for their speeches. It is just as well that the outside public should know exactly what is being done for these voluntary organisations. Let me emphasise first the point about the representation. I accept the hon. Lady's statement that she is making it entirely on her own account, but that statement came rather belatedly. Really, anyone listening to her in the early stages of her speech would have thought, until my hon. and gallant Friend interrupted her, that she was speaking on behalf of those organisations. I was a little puzzled but that was the impression we got.

Miss Ward: I think I ought to make it perfectly plain that I did not come down to this House and make statements without having found out the facts. I find out the facts by discussing them with members of the organisations. I want to make it perfectly plain that no organisation has asked me to come down here and make public representation, but as I happen to be extremely interested in one or two of these organisations and as I know that the question is always raised by the people who are volunteering of what their position is' and what protection they will have, surely my right hon. Friend would think it fair, when I have a great number of friends in the organisations who have raised the matter with me personally, that I should represent the position, if I so desire, on their behalf. At any rate, my right hon. Friend is quite correct—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Lady is making quite a number of points.

Sir W. Womersley: It is her usual custom, Sir, and we do not object to it. The hon. Lady is misunderstanding me. I do not complain of her raising any point she likes, or of raising any point she has heard about from any other person. I want to make clear to the House and the country at large that I personally have had no representations from any organisa-


tion, and our relations as regards these matters are on the friendliest possible terms. If I thought that justice was not being done to these voluntary workers, I should recommend the Government to take action.
Here we have a system of working which has been entirely satisfactory up to now. I have had no personal complaints, and if those members of those organisations who have asked this question of the hon. Lady had studied the terms of the contract they signed they would have found the position set out quite clearly. This is the position, as the hon. Lady herself says: The Government undertake to provide compensation and pension benefits for injury sustained as a result of enemy action. That is entirely on the same lines as the civilian injuries scheme. So these voluntary workers, who are not members of the Armed Forces but are classified along with other civilian workers, workers for the society in this country as well as in the countries abroad, come under that scheme. They are compensated for what is termed a "war injury," which, broadly speaking, is a physical injury caused by enemy action or by war operations against the enemy. I should like to look into the case she quoted of the accident. If the worker was travelling on her duties it may be she was entitled to benefit under this scheme. That is a matter I must consider. To continue, a "war injury" can also be a physical injury caused by crashes of aircraft, whether hostile or belonging to His Majesty's Government, or any Allied Power. That is covered, in the case of these voluntary workers, in exactly the same way as in the case of the civilian population.
The question at issue is whether we have to segregate these workers from the civilian population and add them to the Armed Forces of the Crown. I ask the House to consider what a difficult position would arise if we took just one section of those workers, and said they were to be classified as belonging to the Armed Forces of the Crown. It could not be done. A special scheme would have to be drawn up to deal with them. There is no request, no desire for that. What we do arrange is that as far as injuries which can be termed under the British law as being the responsibility of the employer are concerned they make the necessary

arrangements for compensation and treatment. The larger organisations, such as the British Red Cross Society, already have members overseas, and other societies who have not members overseas will be sending them later on. I would recommend them to copy the example of the British Red Cross Society. They recognise their responsibility to make suitable provision for their members against risks arising from their employment which do not fall within the civilian injuries scheme. They do this by means of insurance. The hon. Lady mentioned a case in which there was to be insurance, and she stated the amount. I cannot debate whether the amount is sufficient or not, but if it can be brought to my notice that these societies are not providing reasonable and adequate compensation, then I am prepared to take up the matter with the societies, and we can discuss it. So far we have been able to arrange these matters without any difficulty, and I hope we shall be able to continue in that way.

Miss Ward: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say he had had no representations at all?

Sir W. Womersley: I have not, except from the hon. Lady.

Miss Ward: Then how could he have carried out these matters to their satisfaction?

Sir W. Womersley: I said, representations of complaint. I make the offer that if it can be brought to my notice that they are not making adequate provision for their employees, I am prepared to discuss the matter with them. I do not mean that they have to bring it to my notice. If the hon. Lady has any case I should welcome information on it, and I will go into it thoroughly—although it is not my business—because I have just as much regard for these volunteers as has the hon. Lady.
The position the House has to face is whether we have to regard these people as part and parcel of the Armed Forces of the Crown, or as what they are, civilian workers who happen to have to go abroad in the occupation in which they are engaged. That is the point at issue, a very important point. I submit that we are handling this matter in the right and proper way, by giving to those civilians who go overseas the protection which we


give to our own citizens in this country. As regard the question of disease, etc., that does not come under the civilian injuries scheme, but provision is made through the employing societies so that adequate compensation is received.
The hon. Lady mentioned the case of India. I want to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for India for the interest he has shown in this matter. As soon as his attention was called to it he took it up. He has discussed it with the War Office and with all the people concerned. I do not know what the amount is, but I understand that it has now been agreed that risks not covered by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme should be covered by insurance policies, to be taken out by the societies concerned. It cannot be said that there has been any neglect in this matter. I submit the Government have done all they could be expected to do. Again I assure the hon. Lady if any case is brought to my notice in which there appears to be hardship I will investigate the matter and bring it to the notice of those concerned. In conclusion, until it can be proved to me that the system we are operating is wrong or unjust, I must tell the House that we shall continue as we are doing.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: We ought to thank the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) does not mind my saying so I hope he will not adopt the attitude that persons must speak here for some organisation when they address the House. The accusation has been made very often against Members of Parliament that we speak here for certain sections of the community only. I hope we shall never reach that position. Anyhow, I think the hon. Lady is entitled to speak as she has done this evening.

Sir W. Womersley: The point at issue so far as I was concerned is that I do not want it to go abroad that the hon. Lady was speaking on behalf of these organisations.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has been here for many years and knows all the tricks of debate. Consequently he is trying to fasten a doubtful point on the hon. Lady so that he may ride off on something else. There are two or three points in connection with this matter

which ought to be mentioned and we need not descend to partisanship about it. The first point in relation to these people serving abroad is that the right hon. Gentleman says that they will be treated exactly as if they were civilians doing similar work at home. But the hon. Lady was right in saying that conditions abroad must make our people more prone to certain diseases than if they remained in this country. I hope that point will carry weight with the right hon. Gentleman when put that way.
As hon. Members may know, I have been connected with the approved society system for about 35 years. It may interest hon. Members to learn that since the war began there has been an increase in the percentage of sickness and disablement benefit paid by the approved societies, which cover about 20,000,000 people, of from 25 to 30 per cent. Part of that increase obviously comes about—I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman at all for that, because he must be guided by the Royal Warrant—because every time the Minister of Pensions refuses a claim for pension, and the ex-Serviceman concerned is disabled, then he automatically falls, if he is an insured person, upon the funds of the approved societies.

Sir W. Womersley: If he receives a pension he comes under the society for his disability.

Mr. Davies: I am not disputing that. The strange thing, however, is, that when the right hon. Gentleman's Department turn down a case like that, and the unfortunate sick person comes on the funds of the society, a proportion of the approved society benefits he receives comes in the end from State funds. Nearly all these people who make a claim on the right hon. Gentleman and are refused a pension and are disabled from following any employment, automatically fall on the funds of the approved societies. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman escapes his personal responsibility, because the Royal Warrant is the responsibility of Parliament, which has given him the power to deal with these cases.
I think, therefore, the hon. Lady has done good service this evening. Although she may not speak on behalf of the voluntary organisations, I think they will be thanking her for doing so. People are slow to complain against the Government,


especially if they are supporters of the Government politically. I do not speak on behalf of the approved societies, but I am certain that I could carry every official and committee man of every approved society with me when I say that whenever a soldier, sailor, airman, or anybody connected with the war effort suffers injury or disease as a consequence of his service to the State, he should be able to claim and receive a pension from the Ministry of Pensions.

Sir W. Womersley: With the permission of the House, I would like to reply to the hon. Member, because this is an important issue. I do not want a false impression to go out. He is talking about the approved societies belonging to the friendly societies and the trade unions. He alleges that when my Department turns down a case it falls on the approved societies. The hon. Member does not understand the position. A man or woman enters into insurance and pays a certain number of contributions, and thereby secures benefit, not because he or she has been refused a pension by my Department, but because they are entitled to it under the terms and conditions

under which they have paid their insurance. Whether I give a pension or not they are entitled to benefit.

Mr. Davies: Not to the full benefit.

Sir W. Womersley: No, but entitled to benefit. This Government has made it possible for every member of the Armed Forces to be insured by paying a contribution—unless it be true that it all comes out of the same purse in the long run. I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should divorce the national insurance scheme and the pensions policy that I have to carry out. If he goes on that tack he will do the greatest disservice to the ex-Serviceman and woman ever done in the history of the country.

Mr. Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman pays a pension, that comes entirely out of taxation, but when the insured persons falls on the funds of the approved societies he gets his benefits because he has contributed in part towards them. That is the difference.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eight o' Clock.